Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cowes Urban District Council Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Gateshead Corporation Bill [Lords],

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Surrey County Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Dumbarton Burgh (Water) Provisional Order Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SCHOOL CAMPS.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to provide added accommodation for school camps for the distressed area children of South Wales?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I regret that I have nothing to add to the replies already given to the hon. Member on this subject.

Sir W. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 350 children per week from distressed areas are deprived of a weekly holiday, that no arrangements have been made, that for the last two months promises have been made that something was going to be done but nothing has

been done, and when can we have an answer?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much regret that I cannot give an answer, but I can assure the hon. Member that any diminution in the number of school children for whom facilities are available must be a matter of great regret, because there are even this year some 10,200 places open in South Wales.

Sir W. Jenkins: That is not an increase over last year, but a decrease.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether any requests have been received for the erection of any Government factories in the North Staffordshire area; have any steps been taken to apply the facilities of the Special Areas Act to the area; and is it intended to carry out any industrial development in the North Staffordshire-South Cheshire area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the industrial conditions of the Kidsgrove area, and he has brought to the notice of the Government Departments concerned the claims of this area for consideration in connection with any proposals for Government factories that may be in prospect. I have no information as to whether any progress has been made in the local negotiations, to which my right hon. Friend referred in the reply which he gave to the hon. Member on 4th November last, for the formation of a site company within the meaning of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act. In reply to the last part of the question, I have no information about the intentions of private industrialists to carry out schemes of development in the area.

Mr. Smith: Is it the intention of the Government to set up any further shadow factories, and, if so, will they bear in mind the needs of this area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The claims of this area will be considered.

Mr. R. Acland: Are there any settled principles on which the Minister acts in recommending that certain areas should have special consideration, or does he do it in a general way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In connection with the site companies to which reference was


made, Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, applies. As to other cases, naturally my right hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the position of areas like this area, where there is an exceptionally high rate of unemployment, and that, of course, is borne in mind.

PARK ROYAL TRAINING CENTRE.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the complaints regarding the sanitary conditions at Park Royal Government Training Centre; and whether the arrangements are now considered satisfactory?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can trace only one such complaint, and that was last year. It was fully investigated. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present arrangements give no ground for complaint.

Mr. Whiteley: Has the hon. Member not had any complaints this year? There have been very serious complaints.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My answer is certainly as I have given it, but if the hon. Member has any information, I shall be grateful to have it.

Mr. Tinker: What system have they for the examination of these arrangements when complaints are made, because if I remember aright it was a complaint from me that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his reply?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, the hon. Member is indeed correct, but, as he no doubt knows from correspondence with my right hon. Friend, an investigator went into this case and carried out a thorough investigation.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour (1) to how many applicants winter allowances were given by the Unemployment Assistance Board in the Chesterfield area, and what was the average amount given;
(2) what proportion of persons registered as unemployed were in receipt of winter allowances in Great Britain at 1st March, 1938, and what was the proportion in the Chesterfield area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the Board's administrative area of Chesterfield the num-

ber of assessments current on 17th January last was 2,812, in 845 of which the assessment included a winter addition of an average weekly value of approximately 1s. 9d. per case. Over the whole of Great Britain on the same date the number of current assessments of allowances of applicants registered as unemployed was 603,909. In 263,388 of these cases the assessment included a winter addition. I regret that statistics relating to 1st March, 1938, are not available, but the Board have no reason to believe that there had been any substantial change on that date in the number of additions current.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the evidence given by Mrs. George Verdin, on whose husband the St. Pancras coroner returned a verdict of suicide on 8th June, that he had been unaware of his right to apply for supplementary benefit from the Unemployment Assistance Board while unemployed, he will cause to be posted in a prominent place at all Employment Exchanges a notice informing the unemployed of their rights in this respect?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member has, I think, been misinformed about this case, since it is clear that Mr. Verdin was aware of and exercised his rights in this matter. He applied for and received an allowance from the Board on 7th March last, two days after the termination of his last spell of work. He subsequently became entitled to unemployment benefit. He was receiving an allowance from the Board in supplementation of his benefit for eight weeks prior to his death. I am glad of the opportunity of correcting the erroneous statements with regard to this case which have appeared in the Press.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wife made the statement to the effect that her husband was not aware of this, and that there have been continual complants of people not being aware of it; and is there any reason why a prominent notice should not be placed in the Employment Exchanges advising the unemployed that they are entitled to this supplementary benefit?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In this particular case the allegations have been most carefully looked into, and they are without exception incorrect. In regard to the


general question, a poster which is put up in the exchanges makes it clear that a person who is within the scope of the Act may apply for unemployment assistance.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Has the person concerned in this question actually drawn supplementary benefit?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I have said in my answer that he drew supplementary benefit for eight weeks prior to his death.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour why a number of unemployed men living at Normanton who applied for unemployment assistance were given food tickets instead of money?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am having inquiry made and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board get their power to give food tickets instead of money when men apply for unemployment assistance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a power which the officers enjoy under the Regulations. In this particular case I am making inquiries to find out in what way the power has been exercised.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that under Part II of the Unemployment Act where relief in kind is given it is given in what is known as special cases, that is, cases which have proved unreliable? I think the hon. Gentleman will find that in this case there are no special cases within the Act.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the result of the inquiries.

Mr. Lawson: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge whether this power is being widely used?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not necessary to use it in a great number of cases.

Mr. John: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a large number of unemployed persons were refused unemployment assistance at Tonypandy on Saturday, 11th June; and will he give the precise number refused and the reasons of such refusals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am having inquiry made and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. John: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance at the following Employment Exchanges; Treorchy, Gelli, Tonypandy, Porth, and Ferndale; the number who have had their allowance reduced; and the number of appeals made against the hardship caused?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply includes a tabular statement I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
I assume that the reductions referred to in the second part of the question relate to decreases from amounts paid under the Standstill arrangements. Information relating to Employment Exchange areas is not available but the following table shows in Column (A) the Board's administrative areas which are served by the Employment Exchanges referred to, in Column (B) the number of assessments current in those areas on the 29th April, 1938, in Column (C) the number of applicants who on the same day (which is the latest date for which information is available) were in receipt of allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings, and in Column (D) the number of appeals against reductions from Standstill payments entered during the four weeks ended the 29th April.

Col. (A).
Col. (B).
Col. (C).
Col. (D).


Treorchy*
…
3,426
372
9


Tonypandy
…
3,275
535
15


Portht†
…
2,809
435
6


Ferndale
…
2,340
239
10


* The Ministry of Labour local offices at Treorchy and Gelli are situated within this area.


†The Ministry of Labour local offices at Porth and Tonyrefail are situated within this area.

STROUD AND NAILSWORTH.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of able-bodied unemployed men on the Stroud and Nailsworth Exchanges on the last available date; how many of these will be suitable for permanent employment on the Minchinhampton aerodrome; and whether any preference will be given to local men?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons normally employed in the cotton industry were at the latest date for which the figures are available registered as unemployed and had been so registered continuously for one year, two years, and three years, or more, respectively?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At 16th May, 1938, 122,623 insured persons, aged 14–64, in the cotton industry in Great Britain were recorded as unemployed. An analysis of this figure according to the length of the last spell of unemployment is not available.

EXCHANGE BRANCH MANAGERS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour how the branch managers for the Employment Exchanges are paid; whether they are civil servants; whether salaries vary according to the number of persons registered as unemployed; whether they are paid for holidays or sick leave; and whether they have pension rights?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The branch managers are not permanent officers but are in the position of contractors, and I am sending the hon. Member a memorandum explaining their conditions of ser-

Calendar Year.
Cost of salaries and other expenses incurred directly by the Board.
Cost of services rendered by other Government Departments including services
rendered by the Ministry of Labour in connection with the receipt of claims for, and the payment
of, unemployment allowances.
Total.





£
£
£


1935
…
…
1,400,000
2,850,000
4,250,000


1936
…
…
1,503,000
2,717,000
4,220,000


1937
…
…
1,713,000
2,967,000
4,680,000

MESSRS. FALK, STADELMANS (TRADE DISPUTE).

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a trade dispute, arising out of a non-acceptance of an award by the

vice. Their remuneration is based on a scale related to the volume of work. It continues during a branch manager's absence on holiday or sick leave, but either he will have to appoint a deputy, or an officer of the Department can be placed in control at a charge of 10s. a day; the conditions of service do not include provision for pensions.

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand that that is the recognised method of dealing with these people? Is it not a rather pernicious system that they should be paid by results?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will find the full conditions set out in the memorandum.

ASSISTANCE BOARD (ADMINISTRATION, COST).

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour the total cost of the Unemployment Assistance Board's administration since its inception?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply includes a tabular statement, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The administration of unemployment allowances commenced on 7th January, 1935, and the following table shows the approximate cost of administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board for the calendar years 1935, 1936 and 1937. Information for 1938 is not yet available.
Industrial Court is still proceeding after a period of many weeks at Messrs. Falk, Stadelmans, London; that the firm named tender for both Government and local council contracts; and whether he will inform the House what steps are being taken by his Department to


endeavour to see that in this case acceptance of the Industrial Court's decisions shall be accepted and to bring about a settlement of the dispute, and thus sustain a policy of adherence to the fair-wages and conditions clauses of Government and local councils standing orders laid down by precedent?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My Department has discussed with the parties the matters at issue between them on numerous occasions and joint conferences have been arranged, but I regret that no mutually agreeable basis of settlement has been reached. The question whether the conditions of employment now in operation at the firm satisfy the requirements of the Fair Wages Clauses contained in any contracts the firm may hold, is a matter for consideration by the Departments or bodies placing the contracts.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that in a few days there will be a big shareholders' meeting of this company, and will the Department take the opportunity of expressing to that meeting the desirability of placating this dispute and getting it settled?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The attitude of the Department that all disputes are regrettable will be known to these shareholders and, indeed, to all shareholders.

Mr. Robinson: I am asking the Minister, seeing that a shareholders' meeting is to be held shortly, whether the Department will make a special effort to convince that meeting that this dispute ought to be ended because of the desire of the Government for peace in industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that that would be a useful or appropriate occasion for the good offices of the Department to be used.

Mr. Jagger: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that where an employer is disregarding the Industrial Court's award he is prima facie not observing the conditions laid down in Government contracts?

LABOUR CONVENTIONS.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour why it is not proposed to ratify before September, 1940, the draft

convention fixing the minimum age for the admission of children to employment at sea?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The provisions in the Education Acts, 1936, providing for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 do not apply to children who reach the age of 14 in the year ending 1st September, 1939. Accordingly, until a year has elapsed from that date the law in this country will not be in accordance with the requirements of the convention referred to by the hon. Member, and consequently will not permit of ratification.

Mr. Hall: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a very necessary protection for young people and that it ought to be put into operation as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to deal with this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give any assurance of that kind at this stage, but I think the question is fully answered in my reply.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman consider sympathetically the question of suggesting to the Cabinet that legislation might be introduced to get over this difficulty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Anything the hon. Member suggests will be considered.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this not an exceptional case in which legislation might be introduced?

Mr. Leach: Will this not mean that other countries are delaying as well, and will have to delay, because of our inaction?

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to issue a White Paper on the action proposed by His Majesty's Government regarding the draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June, 1937?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, sir. According to the normal practice, my right hon. Friend proposes, in due course, to issue a White Paper on this subject.

Mr. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour what are the technical difficulties which have arisen with regard to


the interpretation of the draft Convention concerning the marking of the weight of packages transported by vessels; what progress has been made since last December with regard to their removal; and whether it is possible for His Majesty's Government to ratify the Convention in spite of these difficulties?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st May, 1936, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part of the question, the International Labour Office has not yet reported to the Governing Body the result of its inquiries into the matter. Meanwhile, as ratification of the Convention would involve legislation, it is clearly inexpedient to consider this while questions of interpretation are still in doubt.

Mr. Hall: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the Minister of Labour did make a statement that this Convention had been ratified, and does he not realise that it is a matter of vital importance to waterside workers that the matter should be put into operation at an early date?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The sympathetic attitude of my right hon. Friend to this Convention is known, but at the present moment certain inquiries are being conducted by the International Labour Office, and the speed of those inquiries is not a matter that is under the control of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: As the Convention has been accepted, why cannot it be put into operation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because of the technical difficulties which I have explained.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva append their signatures to Conventions and then fail to ratify them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Member knows, this is an exceptionally difficult and technical case, and the difficulties concern the definition of many of the terms, as, for instance, the terms "package" and "object," in the Convention, but as speedily as possible attempts are being made to get over these difficulties.

CINEMA EMPLOYÉ (INQUIRY).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the collection of information in connection with the cinema industry has now been completed, he will give particulars of what further action he now proposes to take?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Tottenham, South (Mr. Messer) on 19th May, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Day: As investigations have been going on since 1929 in regard to the long working hours and low wages of these employés, what action does the Ministry intend to take?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is the facts up to 1938 that we are now engaged in examining with the utmost possible expedition.

Mr. Day: Does not the Minister agree that from 1929 to 1938 there has been time for his Department to have taken action?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: What is the reason for the delay?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend says in the reply that I am sending to the hon. Member that the inquiries are completed and that full examination is now taking place on the results of those inquiries.

Mr. Jagger: We can be assured, I suppose, that it will be sympathetic examination?

MESSRS. H. J. HEINZ AND COMPANY, LIMITED (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his industrial relations department has been in communication with Messrs. H. J. Heinz and Company, Limited, food producers, Harlesden, London, arising out of the request by the employés to be allowed to negotiate with the company through a trade union; and whether the company has agreed to recognise a union as the medium of negotiation for the work-people;
(2) whether his industrial relations officer has been in communication with Messrs. H. J. Heinz and Company,


Limited, food producers, Harlesden, London, with regard to the victimisation of a number of their employés for trade union activities; and what was the nature of his report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Following a request by the trade union, my Department communicated with the firm in question and were informed that it was their desire to continue their present method of discussing questions affecting wages and conditions with their workpeople direct through the works committee. In these circumstances, it was not possible to bring about discussions between representatives of the company and the union on any of the matters involved, including that referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Adamson: Does the hon. Member appreciate that this firm deliberately discourages trade union organisation, and is he aware that since this question was put down one employé has been dismissed, entirely because he was a trade unionist; and, further, will he still urge his officers to go into this matter more fully and to do it personally?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can assure the hon. Member any request by a trade union or other organisation for the good offices of this Department will never be disregarded.

Mr. Adamson: But surely, not purely by correspondence? Surely, some personal inquiries might be made by officers of the Department?

Mr. G. Strauss: While this dispute continues, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Kitchen Committee not to buy any more of this firm's goods?

Mr. Muff: How many varieties of these councils are there—57?

RETAIL DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the present position in relation to the proposal to regulate wages and conditions of employment in the distributive trades?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Schemes for tale regulation of wages and working conditions in the retail distributive trades, prepared by the English and Scottish Joint Committees of Employers' Organisations

and, Trade Unions, have been submitted to my right hon. Friend, who is at present engaged in examining them in consultation with the respective Joint Committees.

Mr. Davies: Does the word "English" include "Welsh"?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think so, but I am not certain.

Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Member say what percentage of the distributive workers this scheme covers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The scheme has been prepared by this joint consultative committee of employers and trade unions, and it is a very representative committee.

SIR JAMES PRICE (PENSION).

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of pension paid to Sir James Price from the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and whether his appointment as a director of Imperial Airways, Limited, for which he will receive £2,000 per year, will in any way affect his pension?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sir James Price on retirement from the Civil Service became eligible for the grant of a pension at the rate of £797 a year. His pension is borne on the Vote for Superannuation and Retired Allowances. I am unaware what remuneration by way of fees or otherwise Sir James Price will receive as a Director of Imperial Airways, Limited, but his pension will be unaffected by any such payments.

Mr. Batey: Why should the Unemployment Insurance Fund pay a large pension when a person accepts a position and receives a large salary? Would not the Unemployment Assistance Board stop the benefit of an unemployed man if he took a job?

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

MARRIAGE RULE.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider relaxing the rule by which police officers are unable to get married until they have completed four or five years' service?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samual Hoare): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. In the Metropolitan Police Force, although the rule is that a constable may not marry without the consent of the Commissioner of Police until he has completed four years' approved service, a relaxation has recently been introduced providing that consent would now normally be given where the officer has completed two years' service and there is reasonable evidence that marriage is not likely to result in financial embarrassment to him and the application is recommended by his superior officers. In the provincial forces any regulation on this subject is not a matter requiring my consent.

Mr. Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of discontent on the ground that this relaxation is seldom used both in the Metropolitan Force and in other forces; and does he really think it is to the benefit of the country generally that this principle should be enforced?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware of any general discontent. I understand that the relaxation is working very well.

Mr. Thorne: I take it that the chief of police does not select a man's wife?

OUTSIDE DUTY.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of officers of the Metropolitan Police Force engaged on police duty outside the Metropolitan area for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the gross number of days these officers were engaged on such duty and the maximum number that were employed in any one day in outside duties?

Sir S. Hoare: The number of Metropolitan Police officers regularly employed outside the Metropolitan Police District during the year ended on 31st May, 1938, varied between 50 and 57. In addition, a number of officers normally employed within the Metropolitan Police District were employed outside the district, either individually for short periods or, at various public functions, in substantial numbers. The largest number so employed on any one day was 639, in connection with the Ascot races.

Mr. Day: Are these officers paid extra money for this work?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not know whether they receive extra money for their services, but the expense is met by the racecourse authorities or the other people who employ them.

Mr. Day: Does that mean that the officers receive this extra money?

Sir S. Hoare: No, it goes in aid of the rates and taxes.

Mr. Leach: Does this indicate that the Home Office fear grave disorder at Ascot?

POLICE COURTS (PROCEDURE).

Major Procter: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the frequency with which stipendiary magistrates and justices refuse bail upon the mere objection of the police, without any reasons being given for the objection, or upon improper grounds, such as an allegation that the case for the prosecution is not complete or that the accused may interfere with witnesses; and whether he will draw the attention of all magistrates and justices to the legal principles which should be observed in all cases?

Sir S. Hoare: I am in entire sympathy with the principle that unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary justices should make full use of their discretionary power to grant bail. The importance of this principle is, I believe, generally recognised by justices, on whom rests the responsibility of reaching a decision after considering all the circumstances of each individual case. Moreover, the decision of the justices is not final, and where a person committed for trial has been refused bail, it is open to him to make application to a Judge in Chambers or to the High Court. In these circumstances, I do not think that a circular from the Home Office to justices would serve any useful purpose.

Major Procter: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that justices in petty sessions frequently reduce a serious charge before them to a less grave charge in order that they may deal with the case instead of committing it for trial, thereby defeating the object of Section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925; and whether he will either introduce legislation to enable justices to deal with such grave cases or circularise all justices recommending that the practice of reducing grave charges in order to deal with them summarily should be discontinued?

Sir S. Hoare: In indictable cases, it is the duty of justices to commit for trial upon such charges as are supported by the depositions of the witnesses, unless such charges are triable summarily by virtue of Section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, and I am advised that it would be irregular for justices to reduce charges merely for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction. On the other hand, where the offence charged is not triable summarily but the offence revealed by the depositions is so triable, it is open to the justices, if they think fit and if the accused consents, to deal summarily with the lesser charge. I have no information suggesting that justices are not fully aware of this distinction, and, as at present advised, I do not think it is necessary either to amend the law or to issue a circular to justices on the subject.

POLICE RATES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary the police rate for 1937–38 in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Birmingham and Glasgow, and how this compares with that charged in the Metropolitan police rating area?

Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer.
The Metropolitan Police Rate precept for the year 1937–38 was 11d. in the pound. The estimated requirements for police purposes, expressed as a rate in the£ in the undermentioned police districts in 1937–38 were:

s.
d.


Manchester
…
0
11


Leeds
…
0
10.6


Liverpool
…
1
2.1


Sheffield
…
1
0.1


Birmingham
…
1
1


Glasgow
…
0
9.2

SUNDAY TRADING (SEASIDE RESORTS).

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Home Secretary whether any action can be taken before the forthcoming holiday season to assist the position of caterers and other traders in seaside resorts whose work is made unnecessarily difficult by

the provisions of the Sunday Trading Restriction Act?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): There is no power which my right hon. Friend can exercise under the Act. Any relaxations over and above those provided for in the Act would require amending legislation.

Captain Macdonald: Will the hon. Member give sympathetic consideration to a Bill, if one is introduced, to amend the existing regulations?

Mr. Lloyd: If there were general agreement among the various interests.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that all the points which are being raised in connection with this Act of Parliament were fully debated when the measure was considered in Committee?

Sir John Haslam: Is not the hon. Member aware that there are 1,500,000 unemployed, and that extra assistants can easily be obtained?

PRIVATE HIRE CARS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary what were the terms of the application made to him jointly by owners and drivers of taximeter-cabs in London on 10th December last; what representations were made by the deputation from the London cab trade which was received by the Under-Secretary of State on 16th February last; and whether he is now prepared to recommend, in the interests of London transport, the extension to private hire vehicles of the regulations and restrictions which apply to taximeter-cabs?

Mr. Cluse: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the rapid growth in the use in London of cars which, although equipped with taximeters, are not licensed as taximeter-cabs and operate free from control of any authority and from the restraint of any regulations for public passenger-carrying vehicles; and what action he is prepared to take to protect the interests of taximeter-cab drivers and their employers?

Sir S. Hoare: On 10th December I received a memorandum urging legislation


on this subject and asking that a deputation should be received. The deputation was received on 16th February, and on 4th March a further memorandum was submitted on certain questions raised at the deputation. The effect of the representations made to me is that vehicles which are privately hired ought—unless they charge fares higher than taximeter fares—to be subjected to those provisions of the law which govern vehicles plying for hire in the streets. Such proposals raise issues which have to be considered from the point of view of the general public as well as from that of the owners and drivers of cabs. Moreover, the question does not affect London only. The position in the Provinces has to be considered. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I have decided to appoint a small committee to examine the problem. Such an inquiry should not take long, and it is important that the views of the various interests concerned should be heard and that the problem both in London and the Provinces should be viewed as a whole.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is this to be a Select Committee?

Sir S. Hoare: It will be a Departmental Committee.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that it is four months since the deputation was received, and that nothing has been said to them during that interval?

Sir S. Hoare: I am satisfied that an inquiry is necessary and that it should not take long, and that it will prove to be the quickest way of dealing with the question.

FOREIGN VISITORS AU PAIR.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary the conditions under which foreigners are permitted to come to this country as au pair visitors?

Sir S. Hoare: Persons in this country wishing to receive a foreigner in their household au pair are required to show that the arrangement proposed is one of mutual advantage to the two parties, in which the interchange of languages is an important factor, and which does not in-

volve the performance of duties, whether domestic or otherwise, ordinarily commanding a wage payment. Careful inquiries are made in every case to ensure that the arrangement fulfils these conditions.

Mr. Mander: Is any age limit imposed?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think so, but I will look into that point.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the conditions are not abused in any way?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, on the whole I think I am satisfied. If the hon. Member has any information to the contrary, I shall always be ready to consider it.

Mr. Davidson: Do the Government grant special facilities to foreigners if they arrive in foreign aeroplanes?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Home Secretary whether any recommendations have been issued to the various water authorities of the country with regard to their water supply, with particular reference to air attack, for the purpose of making it available by alternate ways of service; and whether plans are being got out for the country showing the mains of the various water authorities and where they could be interlocked or connected to provide duplicate supplies in case of failure of the original supply in case of fire?

Mr. Lloyd: In a memorandum dealing with air-raid precautions issued to all water undertakings special emphasis was laid upon the desirability of preparing plans for alternative methods of maintaining normal supplies, such as connection to the mains of other authorities or the utilization of other sources not ordinarily available. Many such authorities have been specially visited and advice given as to the particular problems with which they are confronted. Measures for supplementing existing supplies for firefighting purposes also form an important part of the emergency fire precaution schemes which are being submitted by local authorities, who are asked to furnish full particulars, including maps showing the existing methods of supply and all supplementary water supplies which can be made available for this purpose.

Mr. Chorlton: Does not the hon. Member agree that this question of water supply is so very important in connection with fire precautions, that a special notice ought to be sent round, and that unless special provisions are explicitly made, the necessities of the case will not be met?

Mr. Lloyd: Water supply does, in fact, form one of the most important items among the suggestions in regard to firefighting schemes.

Mr. Simmonds: Is there any co-ordinating committee working among the local authorities to see that the best results are achieved?

Mr. Lloyd: The Home Office had a great deal of experience during the last War in co-ordinating the fire services of various local authorities. They have a great deal of experience to go upon, and are proceeding upon the same principles, and there are also powers under the Act.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it not a fact that there is no legal obligation upon any water authorities to provide water for fire-extinguishing purposes?

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Home Secretary whether any measures for dealing with burning refuse-heaps in the county of Durham have been submitted for his approval in connection with air-raid precautions schemes, and whether, as these heaps will serve to guide enemy aircraft and so bring loss of life and damage to property in mining areas, he will assure the local authorities concerned that schemes for dealing with such burning heaps will rank for air-raid precaution grant?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The problem of dealing with these burning heaps is under active investigation, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any proposal from a local authority which would help to overcome this difficulty. The question of grant will be considered in the light of any specific proposal for dealing with this matter.

Mr. Stewart: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been blackouts in various parts of the country in connection with air-raid precautions, that in Durham County and in other areas these burning pit-heaps would act as

beacons to enemy machines, that it would be impossible to get a black-out and that in the event of an air raid I am afraid that our people would be blown out; and can he say what will be done by his Department to meet this most serious situation?

Mr. Lloyd: The chief alkali inspector of the Ministry of Health is closely in touch with this problem in various parts of the country. It is intended that the heaps should be surveyed from the air to test in actual practice their visibility from the air. The alkali inspector will, in the first instance, consider the most visible ones, with a view to the possibility of dealing with them, from the point of view of visibility. I would remind the hon. Member that I have gone a considerable way in my original answer.

.Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last War, on one occasion at least, these heaps did guide Zeppelins, and that the company did take steps when their property was concerned?

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows full well that these burning heaps are a menace to the general safety of our people in many industrial areas, and surely he ought to be able to tell us whether the Department intend to do anything to meet the situation?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a matter for the local authorities to deal with in their schemes, in the first instance. I have said that my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any proposal from the local authority. Questions of grant for dealing with the matter will arise on a specific proposal.

Mr. Shinwell: If representations are made by local authorities, do the Government intend to take any action?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not a question of making representations, because the matter can be dealt with under the normal schemes which have to be prepared under the Act.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the survey likely to take place in the near future?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 82 burning pit-heaps in Yorkshire now?

FACTORIES DEPARTMENT (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary when the annual report of the Factory Department is to be published?

Sir Samuel Hoare: I regret that the extreme pressure of work involved in connection with the new Act is delaying the issue of this report. It will be expedited as far as practicable, but I am afraid that I cannot at present fix a date.

Mr. Mander: Will the report be presented before the Debate takes place upon the Home Office Vote? It is very important to have it before that Debate.

Sir S. Hoare: I quite agree that it is important to have it, and we will expedite it as far as we can.

STREET COLLECTION, SURREY.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Clerk of the Peace of Surrey recently authorised a flag day and street collection in that county for the purpose of obtaining funds for the Church of England Central School Movement; that in the county of Surrey there is considerable opposition to the movement in question; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent the holding of flag days and street collections for objects of a contentious character throughout the country?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that the Standing Joint Committee of Surrey granted a permit for a collection in a particular area to raise funds for a school to serve that area. I have no information that there was opposition to such a collection, but in any case the object of the statutory provision regulating street collections is not to prevent collections merely because the object of collection may not command universal approval.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Home Secretary aware that the police have refused permission for flag day collections to be held on behalf of sufferers in Spain and in China on the ground that these were contentious objects; and if there be a general rule that there should not be flag day collections for contentious objects, why was a collection allowed in this case?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Metropolitan Police refused permission for a collection for Spanish sufferers, not on the ground that the object was a contentious one but because it is a general rule that all collections in the Metropolitan area shall be devoted to domestic purposes.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the Home Secretary not aware that only this week the Lord Mayor of London boasted that he has collected many thousands of pounds for sufferers in China?

Sir S. Hoare: That was not a street collection.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

HOMEWORK.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has made any inquiries which would enable him to judge the effects of the issue to local educational authorities of the Board of Education pamphlet on homework?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Inquiries made since the issue of the pamphlet show that it has met with a substantial measure of agreement on the part of both local education authorities and teachers, and that its recommendations are already being implemented in a number of areas, particularly as regards the setting of homework to junior children. The matter is one which His Majesty's inspectors have been instructed to keep under observation.

INFANTS' DEPARTMENTS.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state, for the year ended 31st March, 1938, the number of separate infants' departments which have been amalgamated with other departments; the number of infants' departments which have been amalgamated with junior departments; the number of new combined departments of infants and juniors opened; the number of combined departments in each of these groups which have been placed in charge of men head teachers; and the total number of pupils on the roll in each of these combined departments at the date of amalgamation or opening?

Mr. Lindsay: I regret that it has not been possible to prepare the information asked for in the time available, but I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to circulate the answer?

Sir P. Harris: If I were to put down the question for another day, could the hon. Gentleman give the information to the House?

Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the information is compiled.

REVALUATION (POSTPONEMENT).

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the postponement of the third revaluation inflicts a considerable loss of revenue to local authorities, £140,000 in Durham county alone; and whether he is prepared to limit the postponement to houses with a rate-able value of £30 or less as a means of easing the present difficulties?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I cannot agree that the postponement mentioned has the effect which the hon. Member suggests. As regards the second part of the question, this matter is governed by the provisions of the Act recently passed, and I am afraid it is not open to me to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

EXCHEQUER GRANTS.

Mr. Henderson Stewart asked: the Minister of Health what was the amount of general Exchequer grant per head of weighted population paid to local authorities in England and Wales in the last financial year?

Mr. Elliot: The amount per head of weighted population of that portion of the block grant which was distributed in 1937–38 on that basis was 5s. 4d. If the whole of the block grant had been distributed on the basis of weighted population, the amount per head of weighted population would have been 9s. 2d.

WAGES.

Sir Cooper Rawson asked: the Minister of Health whether he will take

such steps as are necessary to refuse grants to local authorities who fail to pay fair wages as agreed by the appropriate National Joint Industrial Council?

Mr. Elliot: I have no power to withhold grants to local authorities for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rathbone: May I ask how long this matter under discussion has been going on, when it was first brought to the attention of the Department, and whether my right hon. Friend will interest himself in the matter, so that it may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Elliot: There is a further question on the Paper arising out of that specific point.

Sir C. Rawson: Is the Minister aware that a committee has been sitting to inquire into the low wages paid by the municipal authorities?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the majority of those councils which are not paying fair wages are Tory councils?

Sir C. Rawson: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to prevent the Cornish County Council working quarries at less wages than those prescribed by the National Joint Industrial Council and thus competing unfairly with business quarries in the same county who are also ratepayers in the county; and will he cause a full inquiry to be made to ascertain the extent of the loss made by these different municipal quarries after debiting all legitimate overheads which should properly be deducted?

Mr. Elliot: My attention has not previously been called to the issue raised in the first part of this question. I am in communication with the county council in the matter, and will in due course communicate with my hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the question, I am referring my hon. Friend's inquiry to the district auditor.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear in any communication to the county council that they have no need, in their desire to follow the interest of public economy, to follow a system whereby they pay a lower wage than is commonly paid in the county?

Mr. Macquisten: Is the Cornish County Council a Socialist body?

Mr. Kelly: No—Tory.

Mr. Hannah: Are the accounts of the council published, and does the price of stone include transport and the money paid to the officials of the council?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot answer without notice.

Sir C. Rawson: Is it not a fact that the accounts of the council are in a most unsatisfactory state, so that it is impossible to tell what the position is, and cannot my right hon. Friend do something about that?

Mr. Elliot: That is a matter for the district auditor.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. Charlton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in North Devon out of the 203 parishes only 26 have piped water supplies; how many other rural parishes in England are without piped supplies; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the position in North Devon. Schemes are at present under construction for 14 parishes, and I have under consideration applications for sanction to schemes for a further five parishes. In addition, the county council have prepared a regional scheme for a large part of North Devon which is being considered by the local authorities. According to my records there are 3,597 parishes in England without piped supplies. The necessary provision is, in the first place, a matter.for the local authorities, but I am always prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any proposals which might be submitted to me.

Mr. Charlton: Will the Minister take into account the question of air raids and the importance of seeing that the pipe systems have not only one source of supply?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that in counties like Derbyshire the provision of milk is in a very serious position, being held up on account of the lack

of water supply, and that this is a most serious matter?

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of slum dwellings in Great Britain that should be disinhabited if alternative accommodation were available; the number of families and/or persons inhabiting such dwellings; and particulars as to any accelerated progress that has been made in slum clearance in Great Britain during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. Elliot: In England and Wales some 200,000 of such houses have already been demolished, closed or made fit, and a further 250,000, occupied by about 1,000,000 persons, still fall to be dealt with. Action has been initiated in respect of about 170,000 of these. In the 12 months ended 30th April last over 70,000 replacement houses were approved, as compared with about 59,000 approved in the preceding 12 months. In regard to Scotland, the hon. Member will no doubt address a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Day: How does the Minister reconcile this slow progress with the pledges and promises of the Government at the last two Elections?

Mr. Fleming: Is the Minister aware that in some areas houses are being cleared before alternative accommodation is provided?

DAY NURSERIES, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints as to the suggested closing of day nurseries in the city of Liverpool, in view of the fact that the city council have decided to close four day nurseries; whether he is aware that such action is widely deplored and will lead to the mothers of the children affected having to relinquish necessary wage-earning employment in order to care for their children at home; and, to avoid causing these mothers to seek public assistance, will he take steps to investigate fully proposals to reduce the number of day nurseries in Liverpool?

Mr. Elliot: I have, as previously stated, received two complaints in this matter,


and have requested the council to reconsider their decision. I am at present awaiting the result of their reconsideration.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the Minister on what date he asked the council to reconsider its decision with regard to this matter?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I could not say without notice.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me know?

Mr. Elliot: I will, if the hon. Member desires it, send him a copy of the letter which I sent to the council.

BURNING PIT-HEAPS.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations of the Ashton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council about a nuisance arising from a burning pit-heap, formed by the Garswood Hall Collieries Company, Limited, Bryn, near Wigan; whether he is aware that the said colliery company have declined, notwithstanding repeated appeals, to take any steps to abate the nuisance; and whether he will take the necessary steps to have the nuisance abated?

Mr. Elliot: I have not received any representations from this council, but this heap is one of a large list recently reported to me which I am having investigated by my alkali inspectors. I am arranging for this particular heap to be visited very shortly.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for 10 years this colliery company has been requested by the council to deal with its pit-heap, and has refused to do so? In view of the fact that a neighbouring colliery, with a similar pit-heap, has dealt with it, will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear On this colliery company to do the same?

Mr. Elliot: I have not actually received any representations from the council, but am myself sending down an alkali inspector.

Mr. Tinker: Would the right hon. Gentleman go and see the heap himself? He wants special knowledge on this matter, and this would be a good opportunity for him to see what is happening.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me take him round the Yorkshire pits?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn by the Consett Urban District Council to burning refuse heaps at numerous collieries within the county of Durham, which in addition to being a serious menace to the health of the inhabitants, would, in the event of war, serve as beacons to enemy aircraft; and whether suitable steps will be taken to deal with these refuse heaps and for the prohibition of the dumping by colliery companies of refuse material on the surface of land adjoining coal mines?

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the burning refuse heaps at a large number of collieries within the county of Durham which are a serious menace to the health of the people; and whether he is taking suitable steps to deal with these refuse heaps and to prohibit colliery companies from dumping refuse material on the surface near coal mines?

Mr. Elliot: I have received a resolution in this sense from this and other local authorities in Durham. Arrangements have been made for my alkali inspectors, the staff of which has recently been strengthened for the purpose, in conjunction with the Inspectors of the Mines Department, to visit the burning pit-heaps and consider means of abatement and prevention.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the near future seek to introduce legislation, or adopt some other means that will be worth while, to deal with this menace to the public health and prevent colliery proprietors from dumping combustible matter on the surface near to the dwellings of the people in the mining districts?

Mr. Elliot: I think the question of the introduction of legislation scarcely arises.

Mr. Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reputation, which is so high at the moment, will fall to zero if something is not done in this matter?

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether a report will


soon be forthcoming from the committee which was formed to consider the recommendations of the report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, 1937?

Mr. Elliot: I understand that a Provisional Central Council has been set up by the British Hospitals Association to consider the best methods of implementing the main recommendations of the report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission. According to my information, the Council is likely to issue a report towards the end of this year.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister of Health proposing to leave all this entirely to voluntary organisations?

Mr. Elliot: I think we had better await the report.

MATERNITY.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent conference of 7,000 delegates from women's institutes at the Albert Hall, a t which it was agreed by an overwhelming majority that analgesia at childbirth should be available for all mothers who desire it; and whether he will set up an inquiry with a view to steps being taken which would meet the demand of these mothers?

Mr. Elliot: When a doctor is in charge of a case, the question of the administration of analgesics is, of course, within his discretion. As regards births attended by a midwife, the Central Midwives Board, which is the statutory authority regulating the practice of midwives, has resolved, following a report by the British College of Obstetricians, that midwives who have received suitable instruction may, with adequate safeguards, themselves administer analgesics. I am advised that it is within the powers of local authorities to provide the necessary apparatus as part of the equipment of the midwives whom they employ under the Act of 1936.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Is the Minister aware that the former Minister of Health did what he could to encourage the birth rate in this country, and will he do what he can by taking steps to meet this requirement?

Mr. Elliot: I think the provisions made for the midwives' services under the 1936 Act confer most important powers.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many local authorities are supplying midwives' apparatus?

Mr. Elliot: I will try to get the information if the hon. Member will put down a question.

MILK CHURNS (CLEANSING).

Mr. Acland: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the recent Agricultural Research Council's special report on the desirability of immediate action in relation to the question of milk churns being returned from distributors and factories to the producers in an unclean condition, both physically and bacteriologically; and what action does he propose to take thereon?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, already places definite obligations on a dealer with regard to cleanliness of churns returned empty by him to the producer; and also on the producer with regard to the cleansing and scalding with boiling water or steam of all vessels used for containing milk.

Mr. Acland: As this recent report shows that, in spite of the existence of the Order, churns which are not clean are being returned to the producers, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps this year to see that the report for next year shall not contain that same statement?

Mr. Elliot: I think this is a matter of administration, but I will take what steps I can.

Mr. Macquisten: Will my right hon. Friend see that this super-pasteurisation is stopped?

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the recent speech of Mr. Cordell Hull, the United States Secretary of State, in which he expressed the willingness of the United States Government to co-operate with other nations in bringing about an effective agreement on the limitation and progressive reduction of armaments, and in aiding in every way the pacific settlement of international disputes; and whether, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, he will express a similar offer of co-operation?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government are in full agreement with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Cordell Hull in his recent speech, and are always ready to cooperate with other nations in attaining these objects.

Mr. Henderson: Would the right hon. Gentleman also indicate the willingness of His Majesty's Government to join with the United States Government in making definite proposals with a view to securing a halt in the present arms race?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the United States Government have made such a suggestion.

AERIAL WARFARE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the offer recently made by Mr. Cordell Hull, on behalf of the United States Government, to join other nations in seeking to humanise by common agreement the rules and practices of warfare; whether he will make a similar offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government; and whether, with such object in view, His Majesty's Government will announce their willingness to forgo the practice of police bombing on the North West Frontier of India and elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, His Majesty's Government are aware of the observations by Mr. Cordell Hull referred to and they are always ready to co-operate with other nations in seeking an agreement to humanise the rules and practices of warfare. In reply to the third part, His Majesty's Government would not allow the question of police bombing to stand in the way of concluding such an agreement. I must, however, take this opportunity of emphasising that Royal Air Force bombers are not employed on the North West Frontier or elsewhere for the purpose of attacking the civil population. In independent air operations, bombing is never resorted to unless at least 24 hours' notice is given to enable tribesmen and their families to evacuate the area. Even when bombers are used in close support of troops in action, a similar period of warning is always afforded before the operations begin, in order to enable non-combatants

to evacuate the area of operations. These safeguards are expressly laid down in regulations governing the employment of air forces on the Frontier. They are never departed from in any circumstances.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that official spokesmen in Japan, Spain and other countries are using this practice of police bombing in order to neutralise the moral effect of the protest which His Majesty's Government have made in respect of the bombing of the civil populations in China and in Spain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is so, and that is the reason why I took pains to say exactly what are the conditions in which bombing may be carried out on the North West Frontier.

Sir P. Harris: Would it not be a splendid gesture to the world to set an example by abandoning this practice, which is not absolutely necessary in order to maintain our defences in India?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be a splendid gesture, but if it were found that this practice, which is in the main humane, were standing in the way of a general agreement to abolish bombing from the air, we would certainly be prepared to abandon it.

Mr. Lansbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during a Debate in the Legislative Assembly in India an hon. Member countered very emphatically most of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman has read out here, as to the manner in which bombing is carried on and the effect of carrying it on; and will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where the people are to go to when they are told to evacuate their homes and villages and whether it is not a fact that the villages, the herds and the whole of the property of the people are destroyed?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the observations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I do not think there can be any difficulty in the inhabitants of these places finding refuge. I have read that there are numerous caves in the vicinity—[Interruption]—and they can even go to a safe distance in the open country away from the houses in order to escape the effect of bombing.

Mr. Lansbury: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the information on which I based my question.

Mr. Gallacher: What happens if they do not leave the villages?

Mr. Barr: Is the Prime Minister aware that C. F. Andrews, of India, who speaks with great local authority, says, conflicting with what has been announced here today, that in most cases the first notice they get is when the bombing begins on the village?

The Prime Minister: I do not think he would have said that after the statement I have made.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not the purpose of the bombing to give the natives the idea that they are being scolded from Heaven?

WEALTH (CONSCRIPTION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have in draft any Bill dealing with the conscription of wealth with a view to its being brought forward on the outbreak of war at the same time as the Measure dealing with military conscription?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this subject on 1st June, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Is the position this, that elaborate plans are being made by the Government for the conscription of human beings, but that no plans at all are being made for the conscription of wealth in the event of an outbreak of war?

Sir Assheton Pownall: Is not wealth already being conscripted, by means of Income Tax, Surtax and Death Duties, to the extent of over 50 per cent. at the present time?

FORESHORE (DISPOSAL).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take steps to comply with the recommendation of the Coastal Preservation Committee that no part of the foreshore should be disposed of in future by the Commissioners of Crown Lands or the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall except by way of lease to a local authority or to some semipublic body such as the National Trust?

The Prime Minister: The recommendation of the Committee will be borne in mind by the Departments concerned. I understand that in the absence of special circumstances those Departments do not dispose of foreshore except by way of lease or sale to public or semi-public authorities.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars of the fundamental disagreement with reference to a policy concerning the United States which occurred between himself and the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

The Prime Minister: I can add nothing to the statements which I made in this House on 21st and 22nd February last.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that statements from authoritative British sources have recently appeared in the Canadian and American Press to the effect stated in the question; and will not the Prime Minister now state to the House exactly what was the difference between himself and the late Foreign Secretary in regard to American policy?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware from what authoritative sources such information could come.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the Prime Minister place in the Library copies of the American Press, in order that Members may know the policy of the Government?

Mr. Mander: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. De la Bère: Are these questions a contribution to national unity?

LAND ACQUISITION (SCHOOLS, HERTFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health whether he has given consent to the Hertfordshire County Council for borrowing £17,890 (elementary education) and £18,325 (higher education) for the purchase of school sites, erection of county council schools, and other works; how much of this money was


wanted for land purchase; and what was the situation, the area, the price, and the previous rateable value of each site acquired for these educational purposes?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The sum of £8,363 was required for land purchase; £1,857 for 3·43 acres at Hillside Avenue, Boreham Wood, and £6,300 for 22.413 acres at Sandridge Lane, St. Albans. Rates were previously not payable on either of the sites, one being unoccupied and the other agricultural and therefore de-rated.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to place electrical treatment at the disposal of rheumatic patients under National Health Insurance since this treatment, of proved beneficial effect in a disease occasioning great annual loss in this country, is not now available to panel patients?

Mr. Elliot: The medical benefit to which insured persons are entitled as a statutory benefit is limited to services within the competence of general practitioners as a class, and I have no power to extend the scope of the benefit. A number of approved societies, however, have made provision by way of additional benefits for the electrical treatment in approved institutions of their members suffering from rheumatism.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister consider the desirability of extending the authority, in order that this treatment may become general, as suggested in the question?

Mr. Macquisten: Will he call the attention of the medical profession to the beneficial effect of getting people suffering from rheumatism to drink boiled rain water instead of the usual hard water? It is far better than pasteurised milk.

Mr. Elliot: I will bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite. It is impossible for me to go further at the present time.

INDUSTRY AND COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. Emery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the weakening of the economic strength of

democratic countries resulting from the prevailing deflation and from the relative dearness of cheap-managed money, he will confer with the United States Government for the purpose of taking steps to cheapen still further the price of money, in pursuance of the policy of rendering world prices of primary products more remunerative?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 2nd June to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and to the statement which I made on 14th June in reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) and South Croydon (Mr. H. G Williams).

BRAZILIAN LOANS (DEFAULT).

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, notwithstanding the temporary loss to all concerned, he will impose prohibitive duties on importations of Brazilian products into this country pending cessation of the Brazilian default, which has extinguished £80,000,000 of British savings, in view of the fact that, unless His Majesty's Government makes it clear to foreign borrowers that ill-treatment of British capital will be met by tariff reprisals, as protests are disregarded, no British sub-jest will invest in foreign countries, international trade will contract, and unemployment increase?

Sir J. Simon: As my hon. Friend is aware, His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the resumption of payments on the Brazilian external debt, and are in close consultation with the Council of Foreign Bondholders. I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but do not consider that it would achieve the object which he has in mind.

COINAGE (TWOPENNY PIECES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider the minting of two-penny pieces, in view of the added convenience it would afford to the public?

Sir J. Simon: I am not aware of any public demand which would warrant the minting of such a coin.

Mr. De 1a Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the public do require these for purposes of pleasure, for telephoning, for going on piers, and for fetes, and will he consider the matter quite seriously?

Mr. Gallecher: Is the Chancellor not aware that the unemployed will take all the two-penny pieces he cares to mint?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week; and how far he proposes to go to-night, in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended?

The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be:

Monday: Supply; Committee (12th Allotted Day), Board of Education Vote.

Tuesday: Supply; Committee (13th Allotted Day), Foreign Office Vote.

Wednesday and Thursday: Finance Bill; Committee.

The business for Friday will be announced later.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

To-night we propose, in the event of the Rule being suspended, to go up to and including the seventh Order on the Paper. I do not think there will be any necessity to ask the House to sit late.

Sir P. Harris: Can the Prima Minister say when the Draft Unemployment Assistance Regulations, dealing with Winter Adjustments, are likely to be before the House, and can he give an assurance that they will not be taken at a late hour?

The Prime Minister: They will certainly not be taken at a late hour. I cannot say when they will be considered.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 121.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Goldie N. B.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Assheton, R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grimston, R. V.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Barolay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannah, I. C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T.
Harbord, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Haslam, Henry (Hornceastle)


Beechman, N. A.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Dawson, Sir P.
Hely-Hutehinsen, M. R.


Bernays, R. H.
De la Bère, R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan-


Boothby, R. J. G.
Danville, Alfred
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Brass, Sir W.
Dodd, J. S.
Higgs, W. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Deland, G. F.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Holdsworth, H.


Bull, B. B.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hopklnson, A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Hewitt, Dr. A. B.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Drewe, C.
Hulbert, N. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hunter, T.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Eekersley, P. T.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Cary, R. A.
Eden, Rt. Hen. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Leash, Sir J. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Lindley, Viscount
Lindsay, K. M.


Channon, H.
Emery, J. F.
Llpson, D. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emmott, C. E. G. G.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chortlon, A. E. L.
Errington, E.
Lottus, P. C.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)


Clarke, Colonel R S. (E. Grinstead)
Everard, W. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Findlay, Sir E.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Fleming, E. L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Furness, S. N.
Magnay, T.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maitland, A.



Gledhill, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.




Mason, Lt.-Col, Hon. G. K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Rowlands, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Taylor, Vies-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Moreing, A. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Morgan, R. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Train, Sir J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salmon, Sir I.
Turton, R. H.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Salt, E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


O'Connor, Sir Ternece J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Scott, Lord William
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Selley, H. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Peake, O.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Perkins, W. R. D.
Simmonds, O. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wells Sir Sydney


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Smithers, Sir W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rankin, Sir R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)



Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethiek-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Quibell, D. J. K


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsb[...])
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bellanger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Short, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pentypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chalet, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stephen, C.


Clues, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Debbie, W.
Leach, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Edo, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. MoL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Foot, D. M.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Gallasher, W.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CLACTON-ON-SEA) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHOLDERTON AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from he Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to he read the Third time To-morrow.

SHEFFIELD GAS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Reconstitution of Herring Industry Board.)

3.57 P.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(3) The board shall, in addition to their functions under the principal Act, have the function of keeping generally under review matters relating to the herring industry, including the conditions of employment of persons employed therein.
This Amendment has been put down in order to carry out an undertaking which we gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr. Adamson), who proposed an Amendment to Clause 2 enabling the Advisory Council to make recommendations to the Board on this subject. As I said, there seemed to be some doubt whether consideration of this matter would come under the functions of the Board. Therefore, we agreed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman in principle. But it is clearly better to amend Clause 1, which defines the functions of the Board. It would, obviously, be useless to enable the Advisory Council to render advice upon matters which did not concern the Board.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: The Amendment is in fulfilment of the promise given by the Under-Secretary to extend the functions of the board to include consideration of the conditions of the people employed in the industry, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the better draftsmanship which his Department has incorporated in the Amendment which he has submitted to the House. It certainly fulfils the dual purpose not only of adding to the functions of the board, but of not precluding the Advisory Council from still considering and advising the board on these matters. Therefore, we accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to the Herring Industry Advisory Council.)

3.59 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after "Council," to insert "other than the chairman."
This is merely a consequential drafting Amendment. It follows upon the Amendment made in Committee which provided that the chairman of the Advisory Council should be a member of the Herring Industry Board. Paragraph r of the First Schedule makes provision for the tenure of office and for the method of resignation of members of the council who are to be appointed by Ministers from sections of the industry and other interests. It does not at present exclude the chairman. In consequence of the Amendment made in Committee to provide for the chairman of the Advisory Committee to be a member of the Herring Industry Board, it is necessary to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 8, after "any," insert "such."—[Mr. Colville.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: As we have come to the last stage of the Bill, before the House parts with it altogether, there are a few observations I would like to make on the general position of the industry at the moment, and one or two questions which I would like to ask. At the outset I would say that I think we are all glad that the Government were able, in the Committee stage, to move an Amendment providing that the chairman of the Advisory Council should be a member of the board. That does away with a difficulty which some of us foresaw, that by having a separate chairman of the Advisory Council we should have two gentlemen of almost equal authority who might clash, and we would not have that unified direction which is now generally admitted to be most desirable in the industry. The Amendment which secures that the chairman of the Council shall be a member of the board does away with any difficulties that might have arisen.
There is another question which has caused me and some of my hon. Friends


some anxiety. That is the question of the powers of the board under the Bill. In the Committee stage I wanted to move an Amendment to provide the board with additional powers for the purchase and sale of herring, but I was advised by the Scottish Office that under the original Herring Industry Act the scheme can be amended at any time to give the board additional powers in this connection, should it seem necessary; and I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the circumstances it is desirable that the new board should have some time in office, in order that they themselves should be in a position, after careful consideration of the whole situation, to decide whether they require additional powers, and, if so, precisely what those powers should be. I am sure that this House will not refuse any additional powers that the new board may require; and if they propose an amendment of the scheme at a subsequent stage they will get it without difficulty.
I cannot help reiterating the regret that I expressed, on the occasion of the Second Reading, that more is not being done to meet the immediate requirements of the industry. I made an appeal on that occasion, and subsequently addressed a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that some measures should be taken by the Government to mitigate the severities of the present price of coal. We are doing something for the motor-boat owner, but in this Bill we are doing nothing for the owner of the steam drifter, and he still has a very important part to play in the industry. We have had issued to us, in the course of the last 24 hours, the annual report of the present Herring Industry Board. The board draw attention to the serious menace to the industry which arises out of Dutch competition in foreign markets, and the cut prices they have been able to quote. It seems to some of us who have a great interest in the industry that the price of coal at the present time is one of the main factors in the costs of production in the industry.
I confess that I wish that the Bill had contained some provision to assist those fishermen who are running steam drifters to reduce their costs of production by reducing the price of coal. We already make an exception for the fishermen in

the case of the oil fuel duty; they are granted special exemption. It seems to me that the same principle should apply to those who have to burn coal as fuel. During recent months the price of coal to the fishermen has risen from something like 23s. to between 35s. and 37s. a ton. That is an enormous addition to the running costs of the herring fleet. And in this connection, I would quote to my right hon. Friend a passage from a most interesting leading article in the "Times" this morning, regarding this Bill and the general position of the industry. The article says:
Certain fiscal concessions have already been made in respect of the oil by which part of the fleet is fired, but the coal-fired vessels are not the least valuable to the national economy, and it would be intolerable if they were driven out of existence by high fuel costs which must offset the effect of any subsidy offered under the Bill.
I believe that in the end the Government will be compelled to take some action along the lines of reducing the running costs of production of the fleet. Otherwise it will be difficult to compete against the Dutch under existing conditions.
I would like now to make a brief reference to the report of the Herring Industry Board, which has just come into our hands. It has at every point a direct relevance to this Bill, and no doubt it will be very seriously considered by the new board. The report is, perhaps inevitably in the circumstances, rather bitter; and I feel that the present board is labouring under a certain sense of grievance. You can see in every line of the report that they feel they have been unfairly and hardly treated, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, have had a raw deal. We must hope that the new board will not have a raw deal. Nevertheless this report is definitely more constructive in every way than the report issued a year ago. I would like to quote one or two passages in this report, for they seem to me to be of very great importance. First of all they say, and this Bill confirms it:
The redundancy which was described by the Sea Fish Commission in their report as 'an inescapable and major issue' still persists, and so long as it remains the state of the industry will inevitably be unsound.
No one will contradict that statement. They go on:
It would appear that notwithstanding their original acceptance of the report of the Sea Fish Commission a considerable proportion


of the industry are opposed in principle to its recommendations and to the putting of them into execution by the board. They do not desire regulation, reorganisation, or the placing of their business upon an economic basis.
Of course, if that is the truth it is very serious. It means that in effect this Bill will be valueless. They continue:
What they do desire and have repeatedly asked for is that they should be enabled to continue on their old uneconomic lines and that the losses consequent upon their so doing should be met by Treasury grants and subsidies which ultimately fall upon the general taxpayer. Apart from opposition to the board, the feelings and relations within the industry itself are far from satisfactory. Although it must be clear that they are all dependent to a greater or less degree upon one another there is always an element of mistrust and jealousy existing between, and even within, various branches and sections of the trade.
It is manifest that if the present board or any other organisation which may be set up in its place is to be successful in restoring some measure of prosperity to the industry, there must be much greater co-operation both between the industry and the board, and between various sections and branches of the industry.''
This is a very formidable condemnation of the industry as a whole. I dare say that members of the board felt that, as they were in for a penny, they might as well be in for a pound. It was their swan-song, and so they ventured to tell what they felt was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and, in colloquial language, they have said a mouthful. I myself do not think that the internal condition of the industry is quite as disastrous as this report makes out. But that there is a certain opposition to any form of rationalisation, and considerable jealousy between the different sections of the industry is undoubtedly true. If the late board has rendered no other service—I think it has rendered quite considerable services to the industry —it is not at all a bad thing that it should have expressed itself as forcibly as it has done in this report on some of the internal difficulties which beset the industry.
I come now to the vexed question of motor boats as against drifters. On Second Reading I said that I thought the Government were quite right in concentrating this subsidy on motor boats. That view is completely borne out by the report of the board. On page i6, in paragraphs 75, 76 and 77, they say that under existing conditions they do not

think there is room for more than about 300 drifters in the fleet, and that in addition the industry can sustain 500 motor boats. The reason they give is that motor boats of from 50 to 70 feet in length can be profitably employed in fishing for white fish. In existing circumstances it is obvious that the diesel-engined craft has a much better chance of making ends meet throughout the year than has the drifter. I congratulate the Government on sticking firmly to their ground in regard to this motor boat question, and in devoting the subsidy during the next three or four years to motor boats. The report also says:
There is the risk that the value of motor craft for naval purposes in time of war may be impaired by the fact that they have to be provided with imported fuel.
That I think is nonsense, because it applies to the entire Navy as well as to the motor boat. The whole Fleet is oil fired. Therefore, if we in any future war do run short of oil supplies the entire Fleet will have to shut up shop, and we shall face defeat. I do not think therefore that that is a very serious matter.
I come now to the final and most important aspect of the question, upon which I wish to say a few words. The crux of the problem of the industry today is unquestionably markets. The whole trouble here is that we have an industry which we have built up upon the German and the Russian markets, and both those markets are being steadily closed down against us. The report of the board makes that perfectly clear. We find that the German market is going down and I certainly do not view with any great hope or equanimity the prospects for the future so far as Germany is concerned. It may well be that within three or four weeks time we shall find ourselves under the necessity of imposing clearing arrangements so far as our economic relations with Germany are concerned, and that our exports of herring to Germany will fall to an even lower level. Whether that be so or not, the fact remains that the Germans are concentrating upon building up a herring fleet of their own, on catching their own herring—and they are doing that now in increasing numbers—and on restricting the import of herring to the lowest possible figure. As to the Russian market, the falling off has been appalling. The


best hope lies in the markets of the Baltic States and Poland, which have kept comparatively steady for the last few years.
There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend, and it is very important because upon it the success or failure of the new Herring Board will probably rest, and that is in regard to the Dutch competition. The board point out in their report that during last year, owing to the cut prices which the Dutch were able to quote for their exports of cured herring—although they have to transport these herring a much greater distance from the fishing grounds to the curing yards than we do—they were able to export 100,000 more barrels of herring to Lithuania, Germany and Poland than in the previous year. The report adds that if it had not been for this fact we should have been able to sell the whole of our cure without any difficulty. I would ask my right hon. Friend to draw the attention of the new board to the desirability—I almost said the urgent necessity—of our coming to some agreement in this matter with the Dutch Government. It is of vital importance to us, and it is as important to Holland as to this country, that we should no longer indulge in this ruinous, cutthroat competition so far as cured herring are concerned. If we can come to some quota agreement with Holland under which all our herring can be sold at a remunerative price, it would perhaps do more good than any other single thing that could happen to the industry.
I beg my right hon. Friend to direct the attention of the new board to the real necessity of our getting an agreement, if possible, with Holland. I see no reason why we should not succeed in doing that. There has been talk of a cartel, which might include Holland, Germany and ourselves. It will probably be impossible to get Germany to come in under existing conditions, but there is no reason why we should not come to terms and reach an agreement with Holland. It has been done in the steel industry and to some extent in the coal industry, and there is no resaon why we should not end these ruinous cut prices which are doing so much damage to our own industry, and do very little good to the Dutch industry. This is a problem with which the new board will be confronted from the word "go."
I should also like to draw the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend to certain other paragraphs of the report of the Herring Board for this year, and I would at the same time make a special appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on this matter, because his influence in connection with it in the North of Scotland would be of very great importance. I want to call attention to paragraphs 70, 71 and 72. It is a matter of very vital importance in the North-East of Scotland, and it may well be a matter which the board will find itself right up against from the beginning. Because under existing conditions action may have to be taken to permit fishermen in the Scottish season of five or six weeks, when the herrings are at their very best and when there is no difficulty whatsoever in selling them, to make the most of those five or six weeks, and not to confine their operations to five nights fishing per week. I will quote what the board says on the subject:
In order to overcome Dutch competition it is essential that British fishermen and curers should use the advantages of their geographical position to the full. At present all fishermen when working in Scotland and the Scottish when working in England restrict their fishing to five nights in the week as a maximum, with the result that the curers are often restricted to five or less working days in the week also, and the catch and cure are both rendered more expensive.
To deprive workers of any part of their week-end rest is most undesirable on many grounds, but it is a measure which must be considered when the only alternative seems to he a further loss of markets and consequent unemployment of fishermen.
It is not necessary to suggest that any fishing should take place on Saturday nights, but it seems most desirable that both fishermen and boatowners should give serious consideration to the question of the vessels going to sea, when market conditions require it, on Sunday nights in the height of the Scottish season in July and the first half of August.
The season lasts for only five or six weeks. The report says that this would involve the sacrifice of only seven rest days in the whole season. They might have said in the whole year. I would re-emphasise the fact that these particular herring are incomparably better than any other herring that can be caught in any part of the world; there is always a ready market for them; and if this industry is to continue on any kind of economic basis, every effort must be made by our fishermen to


get the maximum catch during the five or six weeks of this critical fishing period.
I should like now to direct attention to an observation made by the President of the Board of Trade in the Debate yesterday when, in the course of a most interesting speech, he observed that while the Russian Trade Agreement with this country was being observed in the letter, it was certainly not being observed in the spirit. He said that he was giving his attention to the matter, and he might find it necessary to take drastic action with regard to Russia. There is no doubt that the new Herring Board will not be able to deal by themselves with the Russian problem. Without the whole weight of the Government behind them they cannot possibly expect to expand our one-time great market in Russia to anything like its old proportions. I do not say that we can ever get back to the old figure of our trade with Russia, but that Russia could buy more than 20,000 or 30,000 barrels at a knock-out price, which affords no profit to anybody, is obvious. I am sure that hon. Members will back up the Government and the President of the Board of Trade in any efforts they may make to bring pressure upon the Russian Government to act up to the Agreement not only in the letter but in the spirit, and to buy herring in return for the many commodities we buy from them.
By far the greatest hope of a revival of our herring industry—although it should be remembered that we can undoubtedly help by expanding the home market—lies in the recovery of foreign markets. And under existing conditions the best hope of all lies in the expansion of our trade with Poland, which is one of the few markets which has kept up during the last few years, and with Rumania. In this connection I should like to quote again from the leading article in the "Times" this morning:
What is the objection to enlisting the co-operation of the Board of Trade itself in transactions which may involve the granting of credits or special price arrangements which a lesser authority could not conclude? Why should it be supposed that countries like Poland or Rumania must be unwilling to take more herring in return for larger or more regular purchases of their own produce?
There is, as the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, a scheme in embryo for extending our trade in Central and Eastern Europe. The position in Poland

and Rumania is particularly favourable for this at the present time. So far as Poland is concerned, they have already considerable sterling commitments in this country which prevent them from buying as many British goods as they wish. Those commitments could be liquidated by the purchase on the part of the British Government of certain commodities in Poland. These purchases would give the Polish Government a sterling balance in London, and an extension of credits could then be granted by the Export Credits Department, part of which could be used by Poland to purchase herring from us. The Poles have privately expressed willingness to purchase herring if further credit facilities can be granted. Exactly the same argument applies to Rumania. She has a frozen clearing in respect of this country which could be liquidated by the extension of medium-term credits. Here, again, there is a great potential market. I beg my right hon. Friend to give the new Herring Board a real chance by ensuring, as Secretary of State for Scotland and as a Member of the Cabinet, that in any efforts they may make to expand our foreign markets—and it is upon the result of these efforts that they will succeed or fail—they will have behind them the whole weight of the Board of Trade and of the Government.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Bill which we are discussing has two main features. The first is the provision for grants amounting to £250,000. Three years ago, when the last Herring Industry Bill was introduced, many of us begged the Government to give grants of only £50,000, which were recommended by the Duncan Commission for the replacement of the fleet, but those pleas were resisted. We now have the satisfaction, after waiting three years, of obtaining five times the amount of money for that purpose which we then modestly claimed. The other outstanding feature of the Bill is the reconstitution of the Herring Board. We all agree that it is vital that the industry under the administration of the new Herring Board should have a fresh start. I am not going to attempt to criticise the administration of the board. We have had many Debates in which criticism has been made of the board, but the fact remains—my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to


it, and it is brought out very clearly in the report of the board—that the board and the industry have not been getting on well together. In the board's report they speak of "the spirit of hostile criticism" that exists and refer to "lack of co-operation" and "even definite opposition," and to the "antagonism" which exists between the industry and the board.
It is obvious that as long as the board has to work in that atmosphere it will not succeed in its measures for the benefit of the industry. The new board must make a fresh start, and it must set out to acquire the confidence of the industry. It may be that what has happened in the past was not entirely the fault of the old board, and there is great force in their contention that expectations which were too high were entertained about it when it was created. Some of us may feel that we have no responsibility for creating those high expectations but, undoubtedly, the industry was persuaded to entertain very high expectations of the board, and to that extent the board entered upon its administration under a severe handicap. But be that as it may, let us now have a fresh start. I associate myself with the plea made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen in the Committee stage, that the personnel of the board should be absolutely new and that the three appointed members should be men who come with fresh claims upon the confidence of the industry as a whole.
I agree also with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that it is unfortunate the Government are unable to propose measures which will deal directly with the immediate needs of the industry, and I entirely support what he said about the vital question of the price of coal. Indeed, it was this, as well as other considerations, which was in my mind when I supported certain proposals and cast certain votes when the Coal Bill was before the House a few months ago. I also think it is a great pity that the Government have not seen their way to respond to a plea which I have constantly made in our Debates on this subject and on the question of defence, that a retaining fee should be paid in peace time to owners of boats for the right to use their boats in the event of war. I have constantly argued that case; it is being done in many other directions, and it would

be a great help to the fishing industry and fair to the men.

Mr. Boothby: I agree with the right hon. Member, but the difficulty, I think, is that the Admiralty for the last five years have said that drifters will be of no value in the next war, although that point of view is not supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). But that is the reason given by the Admiralty.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am glad to know that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen agrees with me. It would be out of order for me to develop the point to-day, for the Secretary of State for Scotland is not solely responsible, but he is a Member of the Cabinet, and I do make the plea that the question of paying this retaining fee shall not be lost sight of. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has, I know, supported the plea in the past, and I hope he will, with the great weight of his authority, support it again to-day.
The fundamental question of policy which the new board will have to decide is how far they are to proceed with the policy of restriction, which, of course was embarked upon when the first Act was passed by this House. This policy has been pursued ruthlessly in the Scottish fleet during the past few years. The Secretary of State told us on the Second Reading of the Bill that the number of steam drifters has been reduced by one-third during the three years 1934 to 1937. I share the view which is prevalent in the industry that this policy of restriction if pressed too far will inevitably prove to be a policy of defeat. Some temporary restriction may certainly be necessary, but it is being pressed very far and the report of the Herring Board, which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen thought more constructive than the previous report, certainly indicates an intention, on the one hand, to pursue this policy of restriction still further while, on the other hand, it expresses a great deal of defeatism opinion about the prospects of regaining our foreign markets.
I hope the new board will set out resolutely not only to regain a very large portion, and I hope an expanding portion, of our foreign markets, but to do what it can—I believe more can be done—


to expand the home market. Nevertheless I have always taken the view in this House and outside that there is not much to be hoped for in the home market; the problem is mainly one of the export market, and there is a great deal to be done with the export market. It is a great mistake to regard the Dutch competition as being invincible and unconquerable or to regard trade policies of Germany and Russia as having been carried so far that these great countries will not be able to take an increased number of herring from us, or that there are no markets in other countries which can be expanded. According to last year's report of Mr. James Mair, the Inspector of Fisheries for Scotland, the world export cure in 1937 was nearly equal to what it was in 1913; the actual figures are 3,100,000 barrels against 3,600,000 barrels. Of course, what is true is that the British share has fallen from 65 per cent. to 32 per cent. While fully recognising the difficulties which undoubtedly do exist abroad I cannot help being convinced that some part of the responsibility for this diminished share is due to the deliberate choice of this policy of restriction, and I am fortified in that opinion by what the Inspector for Sea Fisheries says in his report:
There is not the least doubt that the large catches and cure made by the German and Dutch fishermen and curers have enabled them to lower their production costs and undersell the British article. The restriction of production and the maintaining of a minimum selling price for the fresh article forces the prices of the British cured article to a figure which places the exporter in an almost impossible position when faced with the competition of other countries whose policy is one of the direct opposite. The alarming reduction of the British cure during the past years and the steady increase of that of Germany and Holland, due to the progressive policy adopted by them can be seen at a glance from"—
the figures of the export of cures.
I hope it will be the policy of the board to reduce as far as possible the costs of this industry and to put it on a competitive basis with these other countries by every means possible, and with the full support of the Government to pursue a policy of regaining and expanding our position in foreign markets. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen about the extension of credits to Poland and Rumania, and, I would add, to other Balkan countries. That, again, was a factor I had in mind when we were discussing yesterday the

broad questions of international trade and advocated economic arrangements with the Danubian countries. There are other markets, too. There is a growing market in Palestine, and I hope that in this and in other directions every effort will be made to expand our foreign markets. The most important is, of course, the Russian market. The best transaction we have succeeded in making recently was that with the Russian Government in 1932, and let me repeat what I have said before, that of all the Members of the Government who helped to put that transaction through, the one who deserves the most credit is the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department. He threw himself into that transaction with immense ability and knowledge and we had the best arrangement which has been made with the Russian Government. Then, unfortunately, came the episode of Ottawa with a clause under which the Government felt compelled to denounce the 1932 Agreement, and to inform us that there would now be a new treaty increasing British exports to Russia in proportion to British imports from Russia, whereas, as a matter of fact, the result of the Treaty which has been concluded is that the amount of British exports to Russia has been halved. Under the old Agreement they were £25,000,000, for the four years 1930–33; under the new Agreement they are £13,000,000 for the years 1934–37.

Mr. Colville: I am not quite sure whether I shall be able to answer the right hon. Member on this point when I come to reply to the Debate. I think he is some considerable distance from the Bill when he is referring to a particular provision of a trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker: There is a very strict rule governing Third Reading Debates, and it is that hon. Members must not deal with anything except what is in the Bill.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the Secretary of State was unduly apprehensive. I was not dealing with the detailed provisions of the agreement, but merely with its effects upon our trade with Russia—to which, indeed, the hon. Member who preceded me referred—and the necessity for improving our trade with that country. That is a matter which is very pertinent


to the Bill, since the Bill sets up a new Herring Industry Board, one of the chief functions of which must be to expand our export market, and there is no market that is more important to our herring industry than that of Russia. I think I am entitled to say that at the time when that agreement was made, we begged the Government to include some provision which would deal with the export of herring; and we were told that it was manifest that under the agreement the export of herring would increase, and that it was quite unnecessary to specify any advantage for the herring industry such as was specified in other trade agreements for the coal industry.

Mr. Boothby: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not quite true. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the Russians said that if they had to put herring specifically into the agreement, they would not sign it. We asked them to including herring, but they flatly refused.

Sir A. Sinclair: That may well have been the case. In the course of negotiations, people sometimes say a great many things which they have to retract before the negotiations are concluded. It is certainly fair to argue that if a stronger line had been taken about herring in the case of the agreement with Russia, as was taken about coal in certain other trade agreements, we should have been able to obtain definite advantages for the herring fishing industry. I hope the Government will take a strong line in supporting the new Herring Industry Board in dealing with this problem of the Russian market.

Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am glad that the hon. Member says "Hear hear." If he approves of that remark, he must also be prepared to face the results if the Russians say again, at an early stage of the preliminary negotiations, that they will not deal with us if we insist on herring being included. It is absurd to suppose that Russia could not afford to spend, out of her vast resources, a certain amount of money to buy cured herring which are so much required and appreciated by the Russian people. It is not the case that the taste for herring has disappeared in Russia. People who have been to Russia

and made investigations there have told me that it is not the case that there is a decline in the taste for herring. If Russia chose to buy these herring, there would be an ample demand for them from her people. Therefore, I hope that this matter will be pressed by the Government. I have said before in the House, and I have said to my Russian friends—as I have no doubt the hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said to his—that if the Russians value our friendship and value trade with this country, they ought to be prepared, under these agreements, to buy Scottish herring and British manufactured goods. I want all the trade and good will with Russia that we can obtain, but Russia for her part must make the task of her friends in this country easy by taking our Scottish herring, [Interruption.]

Mr. Boothby: That is something which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) can do.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am sure that in this matter we shall have the help of the hon. Member.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, the position is difficult, in that in the report of the Herring Industry Board, it is stated, in paragraph 24:
The latest reports from official sources show that the U S.S.R.'s present supplies of herring and other fish are ample for the country's needs and that no imports are necessary.
To me that is a very disturbing paragraph. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer it?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would say that the interpretation of that paragraph depends upon the meaning of the word "necessary." It is true that the Russian Government, in order to obtain the supplies of industrial machinery and capital goods which they require, have regarded a very low standard of life for their workers as being the necessary minimum; but in recent years they have been purchasing more consumption goods and trying to raise the standard of life of the people of Russia. There is no doubt that they may be able to maintain the present level of consumption of herring by their people without making any additional import of cured herring—that, I imagine, is the meaning of the paragraph which the hon. Member quoted, and to that extent I


agree with it—but I have no doubt that they could easily find a market for additional imported herring if they were so disposed. Herring is an article of food which is extremely popular and still maintains its popularity with the masses of the Russian people. Therefore, I hope that under this Bill we shall have a fresh start with a new board, and that that new board will throw off the atmosphere of defeatism which has hung around the old board, and make a resolute effort to recapture these foreign markets which are so vital to the future of the herring fishing industry.

4.53

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: There is a Gaelic proverb, which I will not quote in its original form, but which is to the effect that when the sounds of war are heard afar off, the price of cattle and men is raised. There are certain things which cause me to be rather suspicious of the Government's purpose in introducing a Bill of this nature. I feel that it is not too remotely connected with pacifying certain "rebellious" elements in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, particularly among the fishermen. I cannot help feeling that we have here something in the nature of a bribe to quieten them while the Government get on with more important things. The Government are throwing the fishermen this sop which will keep them going for a time, not until there is a real re-organisation of the industry, but until the Government can use the fishermen for purposes of war. One cannot help feeling that this is part of the preparations which the Government are making for things to come.
Personally, I do not think that the Bill will contribute very much towards the solution of the problems which face the fishing industry and the people beyond the actual industry who are dependent upon it. In saying that, I do not deny that it makes some small contribution. It is, as it were, another patch among the many that have been put on a very tattered garment, a small patch which is hardly discernible. It is a tiny contribution to a tremendous problem which the Government have made rather grudgingly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the market for herring

in Palestine. I wish that the Government had paid as much attention to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, particularly to the fishing industry there, as they have paid to the problems of Palestine, and that they had spent as much money on the Highlands and Islands as they have spent on Palestine. The fishing industry might be the means at this time of guaranteeing an additional food supply to this country in time of peace and in time of war.
Frankly, I believe that the only real solution for the difficulties of the herring industry is to be found in nationalisation. The present system has been tried and it has failed miserably. It is all very well to say that this system has been tried and that nationalisation is only a theory, but we have proved that the present system has failed, with deplorable results not only to the industry but to the thousands of people who are dependent upon it. In order to be able to bring any stability, by which I do not mean rigidity, into the industry there must be long-term planning. I agree that short-term measures are necessary immediately, but there must be a longer policy than has so far been presented to us.
It is all very well to talk about rationalisation, and the reconditioning of the fleet, but for what is it? The whole thing is really a question of markets, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland very properly referred with emphasis. We must try to increase the consumption of herring in this country by making it possible for the herring to be sold as widely and as cheaply as possible, with as few middlemen as possible putting up the price and taking the profits of the people who have risked their lives in catching the fish. But the real solution must be in regaining the markets which we have lost and in getting into markets which we have not yet acquired. Palestine offers such a market. The Government are in touch with Palestine through various Departments, and in dealing with that country it is not as if they were dealing with some foreign Government. They are directly in touch with Palestine from day to day in connection with many problems, and it would be easy to have with Palestine some agreement covering the herring industry.
With Germany and Poland there ought to be not only long-term agreements which introduce some stability into the industry, but some system of price-fixing as well. Only the other day, there was a complete stoppage for a few days of the fishing off the West Coast of Scotland. A large representative fleet of Scottish and English drifters were there. The minimum price had been fixed by the Herring Industry Board, already too low and not an economic price; and then the German Government stepped in, with prices fixed by the German Fisheries Department, and demanded that the herring be sold to them at 6s. below the minimum price which had been fixed by the Herring Industry Board. Germany had a buyer's monopoly and immediately abused it. The Herring Industry Board as it has been and as it is to be gives no real protection against that sort of thing.
An appeal was made to the Secretary of State and to the Herring Industry Board, but as far as I know they took no action, and the new Herring Industry Act does not give powers to take any effective action. The local town council of Stornoway suggested that the Government should assist by giving temporary guarantees. While one can sympathise strongly with that demand in such an emergency, I do not think that that in itself would be a real protection against such emergencies. The idea that the Government should come in on occasions of that sort and break the abuse of a buyer's monopoly may be a good one, although under nationalisation the need for it would not arise. I think there is a lack of co-ordination between the Government Departments which have to deal directly or indirectly with the herring industry. Obviously there arise international questions, Board of Trade questions, questions which have to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and questions which can be dealt with only by the statutory independent authority, the Herring Industry Board.
There is a great lack of co-ordination in connection with the herring industry. Several different Departments of State are concerned with it. Sometimes the Foreign Office has to be called in, and frequently the Board of Trade, while the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has to deal with far too many jobs at once, has also certain responsibiltiy for it. If

we are to have any stability in the industry we must have co-ordination among these Departments and some sort of long-term planning in dealing with the foreign markets, which have constituted the real basis of prosperity in the industry. It is not enough merely to have trade agreements to purchase certain quantities of herring at certain given times. We must have some sort of guarantee about prices which will give the industry an opportunity of selling economically.
With all the various amendments and concessions and improvements which have been made, we still find that there is a lack of reliable advice to local area committees and local fishing fleets. Last year at Stornoway a telegram was sent to a private member of the local area committee—not to the secretary—suggesting that the other ports were prepared to open up for fishing and asking whether Stornoway would join in with them or not. The matter came before the local area committee and they agreed to open the port for fishing. They did so and there was a glut of herring at low prices. These people went out and gave their labour and took all the hazards and risks and underwent all the hardships of fishing. They bought coal and wasted I do not know how many hundreds of pounds upon it. No doubt the local coal salesmen flourished, but the fishermen were badly let down as a result of the lack of reliable advice from the board. I lay the blame upon the hoard for not letting the people know in time that the foreign markets were not yet open to buy. Such advice was not forthcoming, and that sort of thing can still happen under the provisions of this Bill. The board, apparently, is still not to be particularly responsible for giving advice of that kind.
Then there is one other point on which I would touch, although it may seem to some hon. Members to be of minor importance. The Herring Industry Board have refused all applications made since 1935 by the owners of any of the few sailing boats left in Scottish fishing ports. There are only two in the Western Isles, and it seems that special regulations were made after 1935 whereby these people have been deprived of any chance of getting a grant of any kind. I cannot imagine why it should have been thought necessary to act so meanly as to introduce a special rule of that kind in order


to deal with two or three possible applicants. The fact of the matter is that they have been able to maintain a certain level of prosperity which the owners of many of the more scientifically equipped and more up-to-date craft have not been able to maintain, and I think that the board might have been generous enough to bring them within the category of those entitled to a grant. The amount involved would not, of itself, be likely to bankrupt the resources available to the Secretary of State.
The question of the real position of the Russian market seems to have been entirely overlooked. It has not been sufficiently stressed that the Russians themselves have, very quietly but very efficiently, developed a herring industry of their own. They do not rely any longer upon a supply which, they say, has been unreliable in the past. We must not forget that a British Government in the past broke off relations with Russia at a time when it might have been extremely critical to the Russian people and when this food supply might have been vitally necessary to them.

Mr. Colville: That in no way affects our ability to supply herring.

Mr. MacMillan: I agree that it has not affected our ability to supply herring to Russia; but it has affected the faith of the Russians in our dependability as suppliers. That is the point. Since they cannot depend upon us to supply them in the normal way, since they find that they are liable suddenly to have their supplies cut off, through political spite, even though it is at the expense of our own people, they are anxious to develop their own herring industry, and we cannot blame them for trying to make themselves as independent as possible in this respect. I am not now merely putting forward the plea that the poor Russian Government cannot rely on the British Government to continue good relations. What I am pointing out, not in a spirit of partisanship but as a matter of fact, is that Conservative Governments in the past have broken off relations with Russia and proved themselves unreliable suppliers, and that that has caused the Russians to go into the business themselves. They are trying to develop their own industry, and they are succeeding to a large extent. I am told that the fishing off Murmansk now is more efficient than most people

imagine. The Germans are trying to do the same thing, but with rather less success than the Russians.
We must remember these facts and remember, also, that we cannot force these people to buy herring. I only wish that we could put into these agreements a stipulation of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I only wish we could be as firm successfully with the Russians on this matter, as we were when the Conservatives broke off diplomatic relations. But the Government have not shown the same firmness in this case as they did in the past when they ruined this market. We have to consider the Russian point of view. We cannot force our herring on them. If we can sell to them, so much the better, and I, for one, shall bless any attempt which is made to expand or rather to regain the Russian market which was the greatest market we ever had.
The question of the Norwegian Herring Agreement has been before the Secretary of State and the Board of Trade. We of Stornoway supported by other districts have urged on the Government that the agreement should be scrapped. It is known to the Government to be harmful to the herring industry in our own country, Yet for some reason the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office refuse to consider the question seriously, and to remove those obstacles in connection with the Norwegian Herring Agreement which are damaging the industry in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat the matter seriously and give to the industry in our own country that consideration which, apparently, it is considered necessary to extend to the feelings of the Norwegian traders.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman had an Amendment on Report relating to labour conditions in the industry. It appears to have been put down as something rather in the nature of the tail-end of an afterthought. This question has not received anything like the consideration which it ought to have received. Whether the industry is conducted under State control or under the haphazard private enterprise system of to-day, the people upon whom it depends are the fishermen and fisherwomen. Without their labour the industry could not be carried on. It is they who undertake the risks and undergo the hardships. Without private control,


the industry could be run as a State industry. Without State control it could be carried on as a private industry. But without the working men and women, who are the real producers, it could not be carried on at all. They are the people to whom the fullest consideration should be given, but apparently they only receive such consideration as can be given at the last moment in the tail end of the Amendment. It is time that stipulations were made regarding the payment of a fair minimum wage to all men and women in the industry. Organisation through trade unions is difficult in the industry for obvious reasons. When these people come under unemployment insurance they are classed as seasonal workers and are penalised in various ways which are well-known to the Minister of Labour. I cannot go into that matter now further than to say that the Minister of Labour must have a rather uncomfortable conscience in relation to the many people who are affected by those seasonal regulations. I suppose nothing can be done about it in a Bill of this kind, but nothing is being done by the Ministry of Labour or by the Government to assist these people in their plight. I think that no class of people in the country have been more neglected in times of peace or have proved themselves more useful in times of war, than the people connected with the herring industry. They are not only herring fishermen but at a moment's notice they can become—

Mr. Macquisten: Mine fishermen.

Mr. MacMillan: Yes, mine fishermen if you like. We know how the Navy was indebted to them in 1914 and afterwards and the services which they rendered throughout the War. But in times of peace they are denied the material assistance which is so urgently necessary for them. It is only now when there are rumours of war, that we are turning again to them and making all sorts of promises to them. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) raised the question of Sunday fishing. While several arguments have been adduced in favour of Sunday fishing, there are strong objections to it. The hon. Member pointed out that during the short intensive season of six weeks on which the prosperity of the industry depends it was a pity that the men should be confined to working

only five days a week. We must consider, however, the question of wear and tear both of gear and of men.

Mr. Boothby: The English fishermen and the foreign fishermen do it in the South for a much longer season.

Mr. MacMillan: That is hardly a logical reason why we should do it in the North; but there are many many reasons against it. The idea that there should be fishing every day in the season might or might not be sympathetically received in this House but there are obvious physical and other reasons why people should not work every day in the week and I think that these people in particular ought to be truly thankful for the break at the end of the week.

Mr. Boothby: One day—that is all we are asking.

Mr. MacMillan: But the hon. Member wants them to work on one day in particular. He does not want Saturday—he wants Sunday.

Mr. Boothby: No, what I suggested was that they should take only one day off in the week owing to the shortness of the season.

Mr. MacMillan: I did not understand that the hon. Member was raising the matter in that form. I still understand that he does not agree with taking Sunday off. But there is this point to be considered, that in the case of the other fishermen to whom he has referred, he industry in England is carried on by large companies who can afford the extra wear and tear and the extra expense involved and the employment of extra men to replace those who may be incapacitated by overwork. That does not apply in the case of Scotland where we have to deal with much smaller companies or with share fishermen working on a much smaller scale.

Mr. Boothby: Does the hon. Member, then, maintain that the Scottish fishing industry is incapable of working for six days a week for that very short season of six weeks in the whole year?

Mr. MacMillan: No, I have not suggested anything of the kind. I am expressing a point of view. I have not said they are incapable, but that it is inadvisable, along with many questions of principle, because of the effects of wear


and tear on the people in the industry. I am not going to vote against this Bill. It is not a step backward. It does not lead us very far ahead, but at least we are holding our own and not losing any ground by it. Therefore, for the contribution which it does make I think most of us are prepared to give it what little support it deserves.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I regret that I did not intervene on the earlier stages of this Bill, but I am glad that this occasion affords an opportunity of expressing oneself with regard to it before we finally part with it from this House. There is one matter which I ought to mention, rather in the nature of an apology. I apologise for intervening in a Debate which so intimately concerns Scotland and, apparently, nobody else. One wonders why a Bill which is supposed to apply to the herring industry around the whole of our coasts is in the charge of the Secretary of State for Scotland, having the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Then I suppose I shall be told that if it were in the charge of the Minister of Agriculture, it would be in the charge of another Scotsman. No wonder there is this paean of joy from Scottish Members when they are receiving a grant from the others of us who have to subscribe £250,000 in one subsidy, a definite gift from which they and they alone will benefit. I regret that it was only this morning that there was put in our hands the very able report of the Herring Industry Board. It would have been better if the Bill itself could have been delayed until that report had been put into our hands, or at any rate if the report had been brought before us earlier. It is a very interesting report, a very able report, a very full report, and I understand from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that it is an infinitely better report than was ever issued before, but if that be so, we should have had the advantage of it before this Bill was considered by this House and given a Second Reading.
The report contains some very valuable material and some very striking facts, to which I hope, with the permission of the House, I may call attention. But this able report is issued by men who are now

to be thrown upon the scrap heap, without a word of apology or explanation and without any reason given. I read with very great care the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and when he came to deal with, I think, Clause 2, he said that it was doing away with the old board and was about to create a new one, but not a single reason was given for doing that. There was just the bare statement. He said that consultations had taken place between certain members of the industry and his predecessor and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but what those people said, or when they said it, or who they were, or what were the reasons that they give, we do not know, except apparently that some information was given, and then his predecessor and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries sifted this chaff and, having sifted it, said, "We will scrap the lot."
What is to be put in their place? Three men, whose sole qualification, apparently, is going to be independence of mind, and they are to have the assistance of an advisory council of experts. The more independent minded they are, the less they will seek advice, and when advice is tendered to them, the more independent minded they are, the chances are much more strengthened that they will flaunt that advice. The whole of this matter is now to be handed over to three men who know nothing at all about the industry.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does that not apply to directors of companies as a rule?

Mr. Davies: At any rate, those companies are responsible to their shareholders. What is to happen here? How do we know whether these people have acted upon the right or upon the wrong advice? Anyway, we know this, that these people are being dismissed with no explanation and no defence. It is unusual in this House to have attacks made upon persons who have carried out a public service and to have not a single word said in their defence from that Box. There was a quite bitter attack made from the other side during the discussion, I think, of the Money Resolution, and an opportunity was then given to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but not a word did he say in defence of these


people, nor any word of gratitude for the work which they had done.
Now may I turn—I think I may claim to say that I am the first of the speakers to do so—to the Bill itself? I have listened to this Debate since about a quarter to four, and I have yet to hear a single word about the policy of the Bill. The most important Clause in this Bill is Clause 4, by which a grant is to be made of £250,000 to build more boats. That £250,000 is to be a third of the cost of building the boats, so that apparently, if one read the Bill and nothing else, one would come to the conclusion that what was needed at the present moment above all other things was more fishing boats, that there was an extraordinarily good market, a growing market, growing so much that you could put down £750,000 worth of more boats. Anyone taking up the Bill would come to the conclusion that there was a good, fat, rich living to be made by anybody who could only put a fishing boat on the water. Yet when I come to read the speeches that have been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others, I find that they have all said practically that the market is gone, that we are in difficulties with regard to the market.
As I read the speech made in support of the Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, really I had to look at it again, because it seemed to me, as I read it, that the speech was one which was delivered in opposition to the Bill and that it ought to have been delivered from that Box and not from this Box. Every reason that he gave was a reason against the policy advocated in the Bill, and put in Clause 4, of building more boats.

Mr. Colville: The declared policy of the Government is not to build more boats, but to replace boats by new motor boats.

Mr. Davies: But where in the Bill do I find a word about replacing boats?

Mr. Colville: I said so in my speech.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's speech is not the Bill and will not be the Act of Parliament, and it is the Act of Parliament that we have to deal with afterwards, not the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. May I remind him of what he said:

The main cause of the depression is the shrinkage in our export trade in cured herring. Continental countries which used to buy an immense quantity of our cured herring have taken steps to provide for themselves and to fulfil their own requirements from their own catches. For example, Germany's production of cured herring increased from 250,000 barrels in 1929 to over 1,000,000 barrels in 1937, and her imports from all countries fell from £,100,000 to 540,000 barrels, that is to say by about half. Those are siguificant figures. Russia has also effected a great increase in her own production…
Then comes this:
Having said that, it is impossible, none the less, for us to escape the conclusion that the total market available for countries who are exporters of cured herring, ourselves and other countries, has fallen to a permanent level which is much lower than that which prevailed before the War, and the balance of policy must be adjusted to meet that fact. It is no use going on saying: 'Provide us with the pre-war market.'
It is no use saying that. Why build more boats? Why ask the country to subscribe £250,000? The right hon. Gentleman went on:
We must recognise that position and adjust our policy accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1938; cols. 610–11, Vol. 336.]
I should have thought adjusting our policy accordingly would be to limit the number of boats, but instead the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and says, "No, my speech points out the fact that the market has gone down, and gone down permanently. I have no hope of putting that right, but at any rate I will do this; I will build more boats."

Mr. Colville: If the hon. and learned Member had been present during these Debates, he would have been in no doubt as to the policy of the Government. As part of the scheme, which is inherent in our proposals, it is intended to replace and not to enlarge.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "replace" once, I think, in the course of his Second Reading speech.

Mr. Colville: We have all used it lots of times.

Mr. Davies: But where is it in the Bill? We cannot deal with speeches, when we are dealing with an Act of Parliament. It is no good quoting in any court of law the words uttered by


the right hon. Gentleman or by any of his colleagues at that Box. Nobody will Listen; they will only refer to the Act of Parliament itself. Then, when I come to this report which is put in our hands this morning, I find that on page 6 there is this very significant passage, part of which was read by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen, but I am sorry he did not read the first part:
There have been, since the board first came into office, large reductions in the fleet and personnel of the industry, but these reductions have not been on a scale commensurate with the shrinkage of trade, and there are still more vessels and more persons in the industry than it is able to support.
That is the crux of the whole matter. I understood from the Front Bench recently that they were a bench of realists. Why cannot they face up to this stark fact, that the shrinkage, although it has been great during the last few years, is still not, in the words of these gentlemen who have carefully considered this matter,
on a scale commensurate with the shrinkage of trade.
What is to happen? This £250,000 is to be handed over to the board to distribute among the fishermen who show that they require it. The words of the Bill are significant. There is to be a means test, for the grants are to be given
for the purpose of assisting in the provision of new motor boats which could not be provided without such assistance.
From another part of the Bill one understands that the grant is to be about one-third of the total cost of the new boat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland said just now that I had not followed the Debate, but I read not only the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary, but the speeches of the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. I gather that the cost of a motor boat would be £3,000 as against £10,000 for a steam drifter. Of this £1,000 is to be provided by the board out of money provided by the Treasury. Apparently the other £2,000 is to be a loan from the Herring Industry Board.
A sum of £3,000 is to be spent on a motor boat for a fisherman who cannot provide it without such assistance. That man, having had his boat built, will start in an industry which is already overcrowded with boats, according to the

board, and in an industry where there is not an expanding but rather a decreasing market. How is he to find the money to pay the interest on the loan, and if he cannot repay the loan what is to happen? Apparently those who in the industry can make a success of it will be asked to contribute to repay the loan. What a premium that will be upon good economics and the good running of boats, because if a man runs them well and at a profit he will not only have to look after his own boats and his own affairs, but will also be responsible for these payments. It is a policy which I fail completely to understand. It seems to me the sort of Bill that might have appeared in "Alice in Wonderland." What do we find has been the experience according to another part of this report? We know how the imports of Russia, Germany and other continental countries have as a whole gone down. We know that they are now running their own fleets and producing their own herring. When we turn to page 13 we see what was the experience of the herring industry in this country last year. Paragraph 59 says:
The figure of £2,180,265 realised by the sale of the whole British herring catch was definitely not sufficient to support the 747 steam and 278 motor drifters engaged in 1937 if the necessary reductions are made for the amount earned by trawlers, ring-netters and small craft. This view was supported by the following statement showing the average earnings of English and Scottish steam drifters at the two main herring fisheries of 1937 and the three previous years.
I will not bother about the three previous years, but for 1937 the total average earnings of the Scottish boats was £1,588, and of English boats £2,780. The report then goes on to say:
On the basis that a Scottish steam drifter requires to gross at least £2,200 and an English vessel £2,700 in order to meet wages, running expenses and maintenance cost, it is evident from these figures that even with the addition of earnings from subsidiary herring fishings, a great majority of the Scottish drifters and a considerable proportion of the English did not do so. The proportion which earned capital charges and a profit for their owners must be smaller still.
There was, apparently, a loss last year of £612 on the average on the Scottish drifters. I know they are steam drifters, but they are engaged in the herring trade, and, as an hon. Member says, are still drifting. Now they are to be helped in their drifting by the addition of a number of new boats subsidised as to one-third


by the Government and as to two-thirds by the industry, which will ultimately be responsible for the repayment of the loans when the fishermen cannot repay them. The case only wants to be stated as it is stated in the report to see the fallacy that is underlying the whole of this business. What can be its purpose when, as is pointed out, the market has all the time been shrinking? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made, as he always does, an eloquent plea with regard to Russia, but what is the good? He apparently wants to threaten Russia. How he is going to threaten Russia if he will not go to war or will not put on tariffs I do not know, except it be by exercising his best persausive powers. He begged the Government to be resolute and not to take Russia at their first word; they were bluffers, and the Government should stick to them firmly. The hon. Member for East Fife called attention to what is stated about Russia by the board. It is obvious that the Russian Government are now providing for their own requirements of herring. Paragraph 22 says:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has developed her Murman Coast herring fisheries to such an extent that the output of preserved herring has been increased from a bare 1,000 tons in 1930 to 99,000 in 1935, and although later figures are not available it is known that the increase is continuing.
Then, again, paragraph 23 says:
At the same time, considerable developments have taken place in the Caspian and Black Sea herring fisheries. The result of this development is shown in the import figures which fell from about 75,000 tons in 1930 to less than 8,000 in 1937. The latest reports from official sources show that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' present supplies of herring and other fish are ample for the country's needs and that no imports are necessary.
What hope have we of reopening the Russian market and forcing herring on to it? The story is the same in regard to Germany, and will undoubtedly be the same with regard to the Baltic States. At present they are taking a certain quantity, but at any moment they will be starting their own fishing industry. I was astonished at the statement made that there was no hope of expanding the market in this country. Why is that statement made? There must be a hope of expanding it in this country. I notice that the Herring Industry Board last year

spent £24,000 in advertising. I should think that that was money thrown away.

Mr. Boothby: The vast bulk of the cure is the Yarmouth hard salt cure in the autumn, and you will never get the people of this country to eat that particular class of herring. For the sale of that herring we are absolutely dependent on northern and eastern Europe.

Mr. Davies: That does not do away with my argument. The only hope is to extend the consumption of herring in one form or another in this country. On that, apparently, £24,000 has been spent in advertising. I should have thought that that was perfectly useless expenditure for the sale of £2,000,000 worth of herring. Assuming that about £1,200,000 of that total was earned by exports abroad, it leaves only £800,000 spent in this country on herring last year. In order to get the sale of that quantity, £24,000 was spent. I should have thought that any trader would advise that that was useless spending. If the board want to bring herring to the attention of the people, let them spend this £250,000 in advertising instead of building boats which are not required, instead of adding to the difficulties at the present moment on the sea, instead of tempting these poor people to go into a business which is unsatisfactory and uneconomic. Let the board help them in another way, and help them, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen suggested, with regard to coal, in their running expenses, in popularising the article, and in making transport easier and better from the ports to inland places where the requirements are. Do not let them start upon a policy which all the facts point to as being wrong.
I regard with some trepidation the disappearance of the old steam drifters. Their value during the War and especially the value of the personnel which manned them was more than this country can estimate. Whether they acted as mine sweepers or did other things, they were the maids-of-all-work used by everybody for these four valuable years. Now they are likely to disappear and you are going to put on the water a sort of little gadfly, a 75-foot motor boat. What earthly use will they be in time of danger? The board have already pointed to one difficulty, and I rather agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that the objection they have with regard to fuel


does not sound a very strong one. Surely the other argument as to the abolition of the steam drifters which were so essential in the last War, and may be essential in the next, is one which ought to give the House the greatest concern. This Bill is obviously an appeal by the Scottish Members on behalf of their constituents. It is only right that a man should stand up for his own constituency. There is one matter to which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) referred, namely, fishing on Sunday. This is not a religious question. I am glad to see that the hon. Member nods his approval, but apparently in some parts it is. I fail to understand the logic because these people when engaged on other work are out on Sundays but in this particular season, for some reason or other, they have not been in the habit of going out from Saturday to Monday. During that period, when the herring is at its best, from July to the middle of August, a period of only six weeks, it would only be a question of giving up six Sunday nights, and, if they like, six sermons, and then they could for the rest of the year go regularly to kirk every Sunday. As an hon. Member reminds me they could get the Sunday services by wireless on the boats. So it cannot really be a question of religion; it is a matter of habit.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The hon. and learned Member must realise that this is most definitely a religious question among the herring fishermen in Scotland, and nowhere more so than in the Western Isles.

Mr. Davies: I understand that as a general rule it is not a religious question at all, but merely a question of habit. If they would go out on the Sunday nights, as the English fishermen do, the chances are they would add to their income a sum of something like £60,000 or £100,000, not a sum to be thrown away, especially when the industry is asking this House for a grant of £200,000. I again deeply regret that the Government have committed themselves to a policy which, I think, is not justified by the facts in this industry, and that they could have helped the industry very much better by sticking to true economics. When are the Government going to learn that it is the

law of supply and demand which is the governing one in all industries?

5.47 P.m.

Mr. Loftus: The Debate has covered such a wide range that I shall not trespass upon the patience of the House in criticising previous speakers. I have not the time to deal with the most interesting speech we have just had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). We have reached the last stage of this Bill. I opposed it on Second Reading and I opposed the Money Resolution on the ground, first, that it did not deal with the urgent and immediate necessities and difficulties which are facing the herring trade to-day, and my second ground of opposition was that it did not subsidise or help to build a type of fishing boat which could face the East Anglian rough autumn fishing conditions. My two objections remain, but I realise that at this stage I have no hope of amending or improving the Bill, as I had in the earlier stages, and I recognise that it does create certain benefits for the trade—and that it establishes the new and most valuable principle of free grants for the building of boats—and I would not take it upon myself to oppose it upon its final reading.
I am going to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland certain questions, and I shall be greatly obliged if he could find time in his reply to answer them, because not only am I interested in them but the English Herring Catchers' Association urgently desires information. The first Clause of the Bill provides for the appointment of a new board of three members. Are they to be whole-time members? If they are, I can conceive that there will be great difficulty in selecting three adequate members. If they have considerable business experience and capacity it will mean paying high remuneration for a very difficult job, and that will bear very heavily upon the poor herring fisheries. And if they are to be three new members, how long will it be before they know anything about the trade and are in a position to act? I suggest that the appointment of an entirely new board means that for at least 12 months nothing can be done. I have been connected closely with this trade for four and a quarter years, and almost weekly I am learning something new about its difficulties, and I cannot imagine


a new board, even one composed of super-business men, suddenly coming to this work, being in a position next year, 1939, to frame any policy to meet the conditions in the trade.
Will the board have adequate powers? If they find that they have not adequate powers for dealing with their responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend then introduce an amending scheme if they request it? They might find that it was urgently necessary for them to control trawling. They have no powers to do it. I hope the board will be a success. I recognise the valuable work done by the old board, and I am glad that the "Aberdeen Free Press," in a leading article yesterday, paid them such a remarkable tribute to their services, but without being in any way offensive to the old board—which is the last thing I would do, because I recognise their qualities and their services—I do hope that in three or four years' time we shall not have the herring industry repeating the complaint in the old fable of Æsop, where the frogs complained that they had deposed King Log only to obtain King Stork, who was devouring their substance.
Clause 2 appoints an advisory council and the English herring catchers are a little anxious—"little" is, perhaps, too mild a word—about their representation on this council. They feel they may not have adequate representation and are the more concerned because they have noticed the silence throughout the Debates on the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who, I regret to see, is not in his place. They hope that this advisory council will protect the interests of the English catchers, and that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who represents the English fishing industry, will remember that 55 per cent. of the herring caught are caught by English boats.
By Clause 3 certain powers are given to the board and I wish to know whether those powers allow the board to buy herring and to sell them. I say, frankly, that I should like to see the new board have powers—I do not know whether the Bill or the scheme gives them—to organise distribution at a time of glut. They should have power to buy and to sell, even below cost, especially to the poorer sections of the community.
As regards Clause 4 the first question which calls for an answer is, Can any fisherman get a new boat built with this grant and then sell it again? I particularly press that point. If he can do so, the system is obviously open to great abuse. We might even get new companies and even moneylenders coming into the business. A boat which had cost £3,000 to build might be sold for £2,700 and there would still be a large profit. I wish to ask further whether any of the grants will be available for small motor boats used by long-shore fishermen, because, frankly I think that is the only hope of my constituents obtaining any of this £250,000. Is there any chance of them getting it? Another question concerns the word "motor-boats." The word "motors," according to every dictionary which I have consulted, is not confined to motors operated by oil. I want to ask specifically whether boats fitted with producer-gas engines will be available for oil. Producer-gas engines are being improved month by month. It is an immensely important point, for this reason, that the whole tendency of our national policy for 15 years past has been to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise oil to drive out the use of coal. We have done it in the Navy, and in the scrapand-build shipbuilding programme the plan was to scrap two old steamships and to build one oil-driven vessel in their place.

Sir Douglas Thomson: The scrap-and-build plan was to scrap two old ships and to build a new one in their place, but it was not necessarily to be an oil-driven vessel.

Mr. Loftus: Not necessarily, certainly, but in how many cases were new coal-burning vessels built? What was the percentage?

Sir D. Thomson: I cannot give the percentage, but I can tell the hon. Member that there were coal-burning vessels built.

Mr. Loftus: Only a very small number. If I were a Member interested in the coal industry I should press for an assurance that the word "motor" in this case should cover the modern and very cheap producer-gas engines, because there are vessels being built in Germany equipped with such engines and we have such lorries running on the roads at very much less cost than petrol-driven lorries.
The next point to which I wish to refer arises under Clause 6. There is nearly £610,000 available for loans. Under the old Act £600,000 was granted and only £140,000 was used, leaving an unexpended balance of £460,000. We are adding another £150,000 making £610,000. I think the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire is the point upon which my constituents require information more than upon any other point. These boats cost £3,000. There will be a grant of £1,000 and the balance of £2,000 will come from the £610,000.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May?

Mr. Loftus: I think the right hon. Gentleman said these small boats would he used for the white fishing for a considerable part of the year. Supposing the white fishing is not remunerative, supposing these boats are a failure and there is a financial loss. Who bears the loss on the £2,000 loaned? Does the whole herring industry bear it? Does the whole fleet bear it? Does the Herring Board bear it? If so, what does it mean? It means that the steam drifters have to bear any loss respecting subsidised boats which fail. That would be such an unjust thing that I cannot imagine any Government or the House of Commons accepting it. Another point is, will any of this loan money of £610,000 be available for building steam drifters? Will it be available at cheap rates of interest? As the steam-drifter side is entirely neglected, surely it would be advisable to let the Herring Board lend it at very low rates of interest for the rebuilding and replacing of steam drifters. That, again, is a point on which my constituents are pressing for information.
I have covered some of the points I had in mind, but there are many others with which I would like to deal, and which were raised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I would refer only to one or two others very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said that the Herring Industry Board report had fixed the figures of the fleet at 300 steam drifters and 500 motor boats. Two members of the board have protested against that statement and have sent in a written protest. My hon. Friend talked about Dutch competition; it has been terribly heavy in the past season. The Dutch

sold herring at very low prices, quite cutting us out; but let the House note the result. The result to-day is that for the last five or six weeks the fishermen have been on strike. As a result of the cutting-out tactics they have had such bad remuneration that they cannot endure another year like that, and that is a fact which may well mean that the Dutch trade will come and meet us and will join in a discussion to prevent such absurd, mad, and cut-throat competition.
I opposed this Bill in its early stages, I think rightly, but I am not opposing it now; but I would say something in the nature of a warning, in words that are not mine. I will end by quoting a few words from a leading article in the "Times" to-day, which I believe are profoundly true:
Far more drastic measures will have to be taken if an industry so important to national defence both in its equipment of ships and in its production of food is to survive on any substantial scale.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I agree very much with some of the points just made by my hon. Friend. There is a great deal in his suggestion that not all of the present Herring Industry Board should be dismissed. There is something to be said for retaining upon the new body that is to administer this scheme at least one of them who have had experience in the last few years. I would join with my hon. Friend also in asking for information about the new Advisory Council. For example, what size is the council to be? Is it to meet regularly and frequently, and how often and in what circumstances? Will it meet as one body, or will it be divided into sub-committees of itself either to deal with special matters or to represent special interests. Remember this Advisory Council is the only contact that the trade will have with the body which controls it, and it is therefore of the greatest possible importance to the industry. Since we have not been told anything about it yet, it would be helpful if the Minister would take a moment of his time this afternoon to tell us what the council will do, where it will meet, how it will function, and so on. We feel entitled to ask questions on those points.
There is a great deal in the fear expressed by my hon. Friend about the possibility of a grantee, that is to say,


one who gets a grant of £1,000, subsequently selling his boat for a profit. There is a real possibility of malpractice here. No doubt the Government have foreseen it, but they have not advised us of their plans, and it might be well if they did so to-day. As to Dutch competition, the workers there have seen the senselessness of the cut-throat competition carried on in recent months. I believe it will have the desired effect of their demanding higher wages and therefore that higher prices will be required for their product. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen struck the right note when he suggested, and indeed begged, that the Government should institute without further delay trade negotiations with Holland to prevent a repetition of such action. The Herring Board Report shows that Holland was selling herring at 10s. per barrel less than we could sell them. That is a cut of about 30 per cent. at least, I should guess, and is completely destructive of our trade. As we have heard, it was apparently destructive of their own industry as well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the suggestion.
The speech to which I listened with the greatest interest was that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I agreed warmly with his concluding sentiments, but I found myself opposed to almost everything else he said. His remarks about the meagreness of the present advertising campaign were completely justified. When the Milk Bill was before this House, a suggestion was made to set aside I believe £50,000 for the advertising of the whole of the milk industry in this country, and I remember representing to the then Minister of Agriculture what an absurd amount that was. I agree that if we are appreciably to extend the sales of herring in the home market, we must adopt modern advertising technique and apply it in a really big way. £25,000 a year is really wasted money. Two or three times that amount would not exceed what is reasonable and necessary.
I do not agree with those who suggest that the home market is of secondary importance. Let them read this report and they will see that we consume at home 600,000 crans of herring per annum, which is only 100,000 crans less than the total cure of which my hon. Friend the

Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) speaks so much, exported to every country in the world. In fact, the home market consumes almost as much as the total of those markets which take the cured herring, and you cannot say that it is of minor importance. The report shows a welcome rise in the consumption of herring at home as a result of such advertising and selling campaigns as have been adopted. Year by year the number of cran has increased. I would ask the Minister to insist, when instructing his new board, that they shall not put the home market for herring into a secondary place but shall devote very great attention to it.
I pass now to the more controversial part of my hon. Friend's speech. He started off by asking why the old board had been dismissed. It is not for me to answer that question and no doubt the Minister will do so, but I can offer him at least two reasons why the fishermen and the trade which I represent felt that some change was necessary. First of all, if a board of this kind is to be successful, obviously it must gain and hold the complete confidence of the trade. The present board have not retained that confidence. Secondly, the constitution of the present board is calculated to destroy that confidence, even if it existed. As my hon. Friend knows, the present board is composed of independent persons and trader representatives. In this trade, for some reason or other, the various sections not only do not co-operate but, according to my experience, find their interests directly at conflict. We have found that the local feeling between districts was reflected on the board, and that the board had the greatest possible difficulty in coming to important decisions.
Without any disrespect whatever to the personnel of the present board, I think it would be wise to have a new body. I agree that it should be composed of three independent men and I hardly think my hon. and learned Friend was serious when he suggested that those three independent men would not take any advice from their advisers. That is not the experience of himself, I am sure, in the great business which he controls, nor does it agree with the experience which we have had in this House. Independent and competent men will certainly take advice.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is this a case of Liberal harmony?

Mr. Stewart: No, in this case we are not harmonious. My hon. and learned Friend's main point related to the new boats. I think he rather misunderstood the position. This is not a proposal to add new boats but to replace boats which are falling out of service. If he had been here on 19th May he would have heard the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answering a question of mine on the subject and saying that the number of steam drifters in Scotland on the register in 1933 and in 1937 had been 733 and 459 respectively. What has happened is that, on an average, 70 of these steam drifters have gone on the scrap heap in Scotland every year. They have disappeared, and if they go on at that rate, far from there being an addition to their number, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, there will not be any steam drifters in Scotland at all in another six years. No Government can possibly watch that process without doing something to fill up the gaps.

Mr. C. Davies: Does the hon. Member think that the suggestion is that before a new boat is built and a grant is made under Clause 4, another boat must be scrapped? If so, I would like to see where it is stated in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: In the last Debate I asked the Government a question almost in the same terms, and I was informed that the grant was to be given for a new boat on the occasion of the scrapping of an old one.

Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the words of an Under-Secretary are as important as an Act of Parliament, and are we to deal with the words of an Under-Secretary or with the words of the Bill?

Mr. Stewart: That is a matter on which the Government must answer, but I myself would make this reply: My hon. and learned Friend says that this is not in the Act. My reply is that it is in action now, without any Government provision. I would repeat to my hon. and learned Friend that steam drifters in Scotland are falling out of use, on account of age and for similar reasons, at the rate of 70 per annum. That is not an Act of Parliament, but it is action, and it is most deplorable action, of which we must take note.

Mr. Loftus: Are they not being largely replaced, without subsidy, by new motor boats, of which over 170 have been built in the last 10 years without subsidy?

Mr. Stewart: I think that figure covers the whole country, but in any case I am satisfied, speaking for that part of the coast which I know best, that these old boats—the average age of the boats that are left is 25 years—are rapidly falling out of use. What is to be put in their place? My hon. and learned Friend asks, "Why motor boats?" I can give him the answer in the form of two figures which I feel must satisfy him and the House. During the last Debate an hon. Member of the Opposition, representing a coal-mining constituency, made a very reasonable point. He asked whether, if motor vessels were built, the result would not be to take the bread out of the mouths of miners in the coal industry? Let me try to answer him from the point of view of my constituents who have to make their living out of these vessels. Let me take two boats, the one a steam drifter which goes to Yarmouth from my part of the country, the other a motor vessel which makes the same voyage, also from East Fife.

Mr. Loftus: What are the sizes?

Mr. Stewart: They are the normal size of steam and motor vessels. I take two years at random. In one year the steam drifter made a gross income of £636 during the Yarmouth season, and, when it came back, after having paid all its expenses, it was able to hand over to its crew £26 16s. each. The motor vessel, for various reasons, was only able to make a gross income of £381, but, because of its cheapness, its economy of running and so on, it paid out to its men £26 12s. each. My hon. Friend may say that that is not a very impressive comparison. I will give him another year. In this case the steel standard drifter made a gross income of £626, and distributed among its crew 25 8s. each. The motor vessel, on the same voyage to Yarmouth, although its gross income was only £434, was able, on account of its lower running charges, to give its men £27 5s. 2d. each.

Mr. Loftus: Is not the hon. Member comparing very old steam drifters with the most modern and efficient motor vessels? Steam is becoming very efficient and economical now.

Mr. Stewart: I was taking quite average boats.

Mr. Speaker: The question of the earnings of vessels going to Yarmouth is not in the Bill. I think it is time we came to the Bill itself.

Mr. Stewart: I was trying to answer my hon. Friend who had attacked Clause 4. I was trying to show that Clause 4 is fully justified by the facts of the trade. I contend that, when we have the clearest possible examples of the economy that follows the use of motor vessels, and, what is more important still, the monetary advantages that accrue to the men, it is impossible to oppose Clause 4. But I must not detain the House unduly. I will finish on this note: The report which has been issued to the House to-day is a rather grim document. Personally, I do not object that the board have turned upon their critics and trounced them. Indeed, I welcome it. If the board had shown more of that bull-dog spirit last year and the year before, perhaps this Bill would not have been necessary. But the board, having met that criticism, have given us one of the most forcible and informative statements on the herring industry that I have ever read. The report is of the greatest possible value to the House and to the country; I do not know of any document that gives more information in a more courageous and concise way, and the board are to be thanked for it.
They say that the future of the overseas trade is black, that there is no chance of its expanding, and that probably there is nothing but decline in store for the industry. I think we are entitled to ask the Government whether they accept that view. Are the Government of the opinion, as the board apparently are, that there is no hope of expanding the foreign market? Clause 7 of the Bill provides for grants to the board for the purpose of extending sales and market development. The Government have only to look for a moment at the report to see possibilities of extending sales and market developments abroad. Let them look at the reference on page II to America, where the sales of herring this year were 3,700 barrels, as against 18,000 last year and 24,000 the year before. Why is that? It is not because of totalitarian States; it is not because of exchange restrictions; it is probably due

to nothing but bad marketing. Again, take the case of the Mediterranean cure, which last year amounted to 83,000 crans, while the year before, on account of the Italian troubles it was only 38,000, and the year before that again 83,000. Here is a steady market, the kind of market that a salesman leaps upon, because he sees opportunities of expanding it. Are the Government satisfied that everything possible is being done to extend sales in those directions? If the Government will look for the opportunities that are to be found, and if the fullest advantage is taken of modern selling methods, I myself am not despondent in regard to this industry. The men in the industry are outstanding for their initiative, independence and determination to "get on" in the world. That is my experience, and I do not believe that they will fall or collapse under the strain of foreign market decline, great as it is. I believe that with the least encouragement from this House these men, who are not hangers-on on the State, will show that the initiative for which their country has been renowned in the past will again assert itself.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has tried to give an explanation of the failure of the board, but I do not suppose that a more childish attempt at an explanation of that failure could have been made. He says that certain sections do not like one another, and that the personnel of the board do not like one another.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not say that.

Mr. Gallacher: At any rate, the whole explanation is quite beside the point. The reason why the Herring Board failed, and the reason why the new board will fail, is that the Herring Board was an alternative to a policy. Not until there is a clear policy will it be possible for any herring board to function or carry on any useful work. The hon. Member himself drew attention to the fact that the Herring Board, in their own report, hold out no hope for the future of the industry, and he asked whether this dismal outlook represents the view of the Government. If the Government had a policy, he would know the policy, and would never ask such a question. There is no policy, and it is impossible for any board to function


without a policy. To clear out one board and appoint another is not a solution for the problems of the herring industry. I remember that in a previous Debate the hon. Member for East Fife said that the Government were only scratching at the problem. They are still scratching at the problem, and that is the reason why the Herring Board have failed. They are only scratching at the problem instead of facing up to it. Why cannot we get someone who will face up to the actual situation which confronts the herring industry, who will seize the problems and deal with them? They are playing with the industry and the lives of the fishermen. If the Herring Board is to make anything at all of its job, the first thing it has to do is to guarantee a basic wage for all herring fishermen. Will the hon. Member for East Fife agree with that?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No; it is impossible.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member says it is impossible. How is it possible for any board to function when such an attitude of mind is adopted?

Mr. Speaker: That again is quite outside the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I thought that, with the introduction of the Amendment to Clause r including within the purview of the Herring Board—
the conditions of employment of persons employed therein,
—I should he entitled to draw attention to a matter which I raised on the Second Reading, and which I consider to be of fundamental importance in connection with this question. Naturally, however, I accept your judgment on such matters as this, and will not follow that up. I want, however, to draw attention to the fact that the policy that would be necessary to ensure the board carrying on its work would embrace, along with ensuring, as stated in the Amendment, proper conditions for those employed in the industry, facilities for the catching of herring without any restrictions of any kind. The report of the Herring Board draws attention to the fact that the home market consumes practically as many herring as are cured for the foreign market. Anyone who knows anything about it will understand that the home consumption at the present time is only a fraction of what should be consumed. The hon. Member

suggested that it is necessary to make wasteful expenditure in the form of advertising. What is the idea of such a suggestion? Advertising arises out of the anarchy of capitalism. If you are going to set up a board to organise an industry you should be able to eliminate that. There are ways to ensure that great communities can consume the herring, which are a very valuable food, and, without the slightest advertising, the 600,000 crans that are now consumed in the home market could be increased three or four times if the organisation of the market is properly taken up. This question of the fishermen has never been viewed in the way it should have been, and as a consequence you are getting new derelict areas in this country. It is a scandal and a shame that such a body of people should be neglected so long. That is the sort of thing that should call for the greatest consideration from Members in all parts of the House, and an end should be put to the playing that is going on with this subject. I agree as to the necessity of developing the foreign market, but one of the first considerations should be the big possibility that there is for developing the home market. The policy should be to ensure the best possible conditions for the men employed, and to allow them to catch all the fish they can, making the Herring Board responsible for seeing that all these fish are used.
In the earlier stages of this Debate there were some interesting remarks by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Russian market, and the Leader of the Liberal party was very anxious that something should be done to force the Russians to take our herring. When the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) drew his attention to the fact that every effort had been made to get the Russians to increase their consumption, the Leader of the Liberal party insisted that the Government had not been strong enough in attempting to force herring on them.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Red herring.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not discussing the Independent Conservatives at present. The red herring in that particular direction have not been properly cured, and have become pretty stale. It has been said, "What about the hon. Member for West Fife? Maybe he can do something about the Russian market." I must


make it clear that I do not in any way represent the Soviet Government. I have no power or influence with them. But while it is useless turning to me on a question of that kind, I can say that, instead of adopting the method suggested by the Leader of the Liberal party, of trying to force the herring on Russia, I am quite certain that a Government pursuing a friendly policy towards it or any country would quite easily win the confidence of that country and increase our trade in all directions with that country. But while you have in this country, behind the herring board and holding power over the herring board, a pro-Fascist Government, how can you hope to extend your trade? Suspected in every direction, played with by the Fascist States, the Government cannot possibly expect anything else but what is happening. To-night we are discussing the terrible condition of the herring trade. Last night we were discussing the terrible condition of trade in general. We say to the fishermen, and the people of the country as a whole, "Get a Government that is genuine in its sympathy with the people who represent peace and progress. Let us have a Government that represents progress, not one that sympathises with the Fascist Governments."

Mr. Speaker: I do not find anything about that in the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: The question I am discussing now is how to get markets, which is an important question contained in the Bill. I suggest that it cannot be done with a Government which shows Fascist sympathies.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot continue along that line.

Mr. Gallacher: I will not follow that up, but I am sure that I have made my meaning clear. I suggest that Clause 4 should be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus); that the dictionary definition of "motor" should be applied by the board, and not the restricted definition proposed by the Government; and that every encouragement should be given to the fishermen not only to use motor boats but to maintain and repair their present steam drifters. I consider that the Bill is the meanest possible effort that could be made to deal with this very great

problem. It represents the very irreducible minimum to assist the fishermen. While I understand that there is no intention of dividing at this stage, I would ask all hon. Members who are interested in the herring industry or who are genuinely interested in the welfare of those concerned with the industry to watch very carefully the developments that take place following this Bill. I am prepared to say that this board will be as great a failure as the previous board, and not until we get a comprehensive policy for the herring industry, which embraces guaranteed conditions for those employed in the industry, which embraces the widest possible activities in the catching of herring, without restriction of any kind, and a great widening and development of the market here at home and a policy in foreign affairs that will allow of a new attitude so far as the foreign market is concerned—not until this new policy is taken in hand, not by this Government but by a better Government, will the herring industry be saved.

6.40 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked me to support a suggestion that the Admiralty should pay a retaining fee to the steam drifter fishermen. On the Second Reading I tried to pay a tribute to the splendid work of the steam drifters in the Great War; also, I said that those splendid little ships and the men who man them will be needed in any future war. But, having been a member of the Board of Admiralty for many years, and knowing the great difficulty they have in extracting money out of the Treasury, I appreciate that it is impossible for the Admiralty to devote to this purpose any of the limited moneys they get for the provision and maintenance of fighting ships. I do not think that is any reason why the Government should not assist steam drifters in other ways to complete against foreign vessels. Therefore, I would like to support the plea that steam drifters should be given assistance by the Government to obtain cheap coal, and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) that steam drifters should come in some way to be assisted under this Bill, to enable them to benefit, too, in the way of loans or something else. These


vessels were of great value in the last War, and the men who man them will be of infinite assistance in any future war.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: After the attack by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I cannot have the illusions concerning the Bill that I had to begin with. It seems to me that this money might have been better spent in giving a present of cheap coal, for the price of coal has risen. The coal trade, which carried the community on its back for many years, has now got on to the back of the community, with a guaranteed wage which no one grudges.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not the coal industry that is getting the advantage from the community; it is the royalty owners.

Mr. Macquisten: No, they are disposed of for a relatively small sum. Under this Bill we are to have a new Herring Board. I cannot understand this fondness for boards. Whenever anything is in a difficulty, the Government say, "Let us appoint a board." How that is to help to sell the herring I do not know. We have had marketing boards of all sorts, and all they have done is to increase prices, increase officials and increase enormously the revenue of the Press from advertising. These boards have all followed the example of the London Transport Board and advertised largely. It is impossible to get any criticism of marketing boards into the newspapers, because, naturally, the newspapers would not print anything in the way of criticism of its advertisers. I would not if I were in their place. That is the American technique: to prevent criticism by advertising. That is why you see silly pictures of a bloater or a herring in the papers. The previous board was composed of men engaged in the industry, and I discovered to my astonishment that one of them was a man who dyed kippers—an infamous practice. You see them at the shops. I exposed the practice publicly in this House a while ago. The profits from the dyed kipper are so much greater. You get something like £40 more than you get for a cran of herring.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is getting far away from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten: Paragraph 56 of the Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board says:
These figures show that the kipper, notwithstanding the publicity given to certain ill-founded attacks upon its quality, is by far the most popular form of herring for home consumption.
This is not what this Bill does. It provides for a certain amount of publicity, but if you are to get a good sale of herring you must popularise the herring.

Mr. Speaker: Is it that for which the Bill makes provision?

Mr. Macquisten: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member says that the Bill does not provide for this, and proceeds to say that it provides for publicity.

Mr. Macquisten: It does not provide for the dyeing of kippers.

Mr. Speaker: Then, the hon. and learned Member must not refer to the dyeing of kippers.

Mr. Macquisten: will let that issue die away. The real question—and it is not sufficiently dealt with—is that of distribution. I do not hold the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that the home market is done. It is by no means done. It is not properly exploited. What is the use of talking about the Russians or Germans or others? They are all going to catch fish for themselves. They are catching their own fish just as they are making their own machinery and aeroplanes. Every country is going to be as self-contained as it possibly can be, and all that we can say to them is, "Bless you, get on with it." We have no right to expect a monopoly in those countries, but in our own country we are not making any really serious effort to increase the consumption of the herring, with the exception of advertisements, which only enrich the newspapers and not the fishers. There is no proper system of distribution, and it is that to which I hope the board will devote itself. Only the other day we saw where people engaged in catching fish wanted to send them by motor transport, but the railways came in and choked them off.
If there is one thing necessary to popularise the herring, it is that it must be


fresh or properly cured. In the old days, when I was a youth, there was the herring hawker, the man who met the boats and then went over the moors to sell the herring to the farmers' wives, who used them while they were fresh and then salted the rest. That is a line which should be acted upon. Motors should meet the boats so as to take the herring to the countryside immediately in a fresh condition. The herring should not first be sent to Billingsgate and then sent out to the consumer to arrive with the poached-egg eye for the breakfast table, with the freshness gone out of them. The herring should be much cheaper, costing not more than a halfpenny or a penny.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten: I wish to do so in every way, but I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to popularise and increase the sale of the herring. The Herring Board is for the purpose of trying to sell herring, and I was indicating, as well as I could, how it should be done.

Mr. Speaker: That could have been done on the other stages—the Second Reading and the Committee and the Report stages—but on the Third Reading hon. Members should confine their remarks to what is in the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides for what the board has to do, and I am pointing out some of the things that I hope it will do. For instance, in Clause 7 there is provision for designating the quality of herring, and there is to be an Advisory Council and a consumers' committee. With what more can the consumers' committee be concerned than the cost of the things they are to sell? Surely, this is part of the Bill. I am suggesting that these are methods whereby the herring can be made cheap. Other marketing boards, such as those dealing with milk and eggs, have to meet with many factors in the cost of production, but it is monstrous that the herring should be so dear. You pay no rent for the sea. Fish from the sea should be the cheapest food.

Mr. Speaker: I really must ask the hon. and learned Member to obey my Ruling and confine his remarks to the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten: I am very sorry. I thought that I was speaking to that at which the Bill is directed, namely, the increased prosperity of the herring trade, and I think that the way to do this is to sell more herring. The way to sell more herring is to get them cheap and as fresh as possible, but if you rule that that is not the purpose of the Bill, I do not think I can say any more about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must not interpret what I say in the wrong way. I was only saying that the remarks he was making were not concerned with the provisions of the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, how is a Member to speak on a Bill if he is only to refer to what is in the Bill itself and not to make comments upon it? He would then have to content himself with merely reading over the Bill. I submit with all deference, that the comments I am making on the Bill are all relevant to what is in the Bill, which is to promote the interests of the herring industry.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt that is the case, but all these details are not referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten: The last thing that anyone would ever dream of would be to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you have restricted the lines upon Which I was going, and in these circumstances I have little more to say. I welcome the Bill, but I do not think it will do much to help, because it has not been directed to the real issue, which is, to see whether we cannot sell more herring. The only way to sell more herring is to make them one of the cheapest of the food supplies of the people; to supply them fresh in the countryside and not to rely upon foreign markets which have to be competed for because of political or other reasons.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Edmund Findlay: I would like to join issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who suggested that the Bill would have the effect of increasing the herring fleet. Perhaps he has not read the reports of the Herring Industry Board of last year and the year before. There are so many boats over 25 years old that, with the possible building programme on the slips


in Scotland and in England, there is no possibility of the increase of this fleet. The Bill, which I welcome, will provide a subsidy for running expenses, and, consequently, cheaper boats. I am sorry that nothing has been done in the Bill for the coal-burning drifters. Last year they burnt 150,000 tons of coal, and hon. Members from coal-producing areas might have taken a more active part in this matter. It is stated in the report that a 33⅓ per cent. economy could have been effected in the drifter, and I believe that, with that economy, it might still be more economical to burn coal in drifters. I hope that if the price of the coal goes up still further, which it may well do, the Government will come to this House and ask for some further assistance for the coal-burning drifters. If this Bill is used in the way it should be used considerable improvement may be made in the marketing of herring. We have heard this afternoon that the Herring Board has spent £35,000 in advertising. I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) as to the value of advertising.

Mr. Macquisten: You own the "Scotsman."

Sir E. Findlay: Which, after all, brings us much nearer together. It is an unreasonable proportion to spend £27,000 in the home market, £3,000 in the foreign market, and only £3,000 in research in trying to find new methods of processing or selling the herring. I would impress upon the new board, which the Government propose to set up, that they would be much more economically minded if they spent £25,000 on experiment instead of spending it on advertising in this market. I know the views of my constituents in connection with the Herring Board. I admire what the board tried to do. There is no doubt that individually they have completely lost the confidence of the trade, and I do not think that it is necessary therefore—it would be a great mistake—for the Secretary of State to reappoint any one of them. Some of them are members of big organisations, and while I have been going round the herring ports I have heard stories, every one of which I am certain is untrue. But still there are rumours, and people say that there is no smoke without fire. My right hon. Friend will be well advised to start en-

tirely afresh and appoint a new Herring Board. It would be very discourteous if I said that without giving my thanks to the people who have served during the last few years on the Herring Board, giving service which perhaps one day will be appreciated more than it is to-day. But it is essential that we should have a new board, not because there is any failing in any particular member of the old board.
I hope that this Bill, with its provision for cheaper boats, will provide sufficient economies to enable us to sell the herring again in the markets of the world. I ask the Secretary of State, because I happen to know something about this particular trade, to advertise his wares and to advertise them abroad. He sold something like 306,969½ crans of herring and only spent £3,000. He increased the sales in this country by only a small proportion, and he spent £25,000 which might have been spent in marketing research. I want to ask him when the board is set up not to spend £27,000 out of the £30,000 in this country but to spend £27,000 abroad and £3,000 in this country.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson: I should like to draw attention once again to the fact that we are giving a grant to motor boats only. I interrupted the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) but I should not like him or anyone else to think that I was not in full agreement with him regarding the doubt with which I look at this proposal. It may be quite right to give the grant to motor boats only, but it is a precedent of extreme gravity. I asked the Under-Secretary whether the same reasons that had led the Scottish Office to favour motor drifters as against steam drifters also led them to suppose that motor trawlers would be more economical than steam trawlers. His reply was that they had not considered the question. The report for last year said it was becoming increasingly more economical to use diesel boats rather than steam boats for trawlers as well as drifters. I invite attention to that matter, because in my constituency we are much more interested in white fish than in herring.
If this should spread from drifters to trawlers in the fishing trade it will become a very serious problem for the country. We have been told that it is a question


of cost. Could the hon. Gentleman give a little more indication how it is a question of cost? Is it capital cost or running cost? Is it a question of a smaller crew or of the price of oil being less than that of coal? If it is a question of a smaller crew, we are not getting much further in this very depressed industry if we are going to throw out of employment those who fire the furnaces of steam drifters.

7.3 P.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to indicate the view that the Opposition take about this Bill. We recognise that it had to be introduced. The conduct of the finance of the herring scheme made it necessary for some renewal to be made. The condition of affairs would have been difficult for any Government to face in the circumstances of what is admitted to be a dying industry. We are very rapidly losing much of the export market, which we shall not recover because the other nations are fishing for their own herring and treating them for their own use. But when one comes to look at the actual provisions of the Bill there are one or two comments to be made. I cordially agree with the hon. Member who spoke last and with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with regard to the effect that this kind of subsidy provision may have on the herring trade in the future. It is not that we wish in any way—far from it—to check anything in the nature of real progress in the equipment and service of the herring fishing fleet. But we are by no means convinced from the actual report of the Herring Board—and I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that I did on the Second Reading pay a tribute to its work—

Mr. C. Davies: I was only referring to the Government Bench. I made no reference to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alexander: The report of the Herring Board makes it perfectly clear that the most economical unit of fishing for herring is the steam drifter if it is fully employed, and there seems to be a good deal of dubiety about the wisdom of giving capital grants for the provision of new boats of a different type unless you have actually tried the reorganisation of the existing steam drifter fleet. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we

beg the Government to see that the condition of many of those already engaged on the steam drifters shall not be worsened by the kind of policy that may be adopted by the board. Whatever is said about the future of the herring industry, it is clear from the latest report of the board that, given really improved conditions of marketing, you can at least save a considerable proportion of the industry by developing the home market. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery as to spending £250,000 a year in advertising for that purpose. I am sure that if we spent that sum he would soon want another subsidy for advertising Welsh mutton to satisfy the farmers in his constituency, and I do not see any advantage in having a whole series of these advertising schemes when the people have only one set of stomachs to fill. You cannot go on indefinitely in that direction. Nevertheless, there has been so far a very satisfactory increase in the sale of herring in the home market in the last two or three years, and it might be very much extended.
Generally speaking, the Government ought to be very careful in their policy of subsidies, whether in this or in any other Bill, to see that they do not injure another industry. The steam drifter fleet consumes a very small proportion of the output of British coal, but it is 180,000 tons, and if you are going, by definite policy, to subsidise some other form of fuel you are really putting a very important handicap upon another form of industry.

Mr. Loftus: It is a precedent.

Mr. Alexander: I would not say it is a single precedent, because there have been others of the same kind, and those who are not very enamoured of the policy of subsidising capitalist industry have pointed it out and will have to point it out again. Of course, it is the human element in this industry, after all, which is the most important. The conditions of the men in the industry are altogether dependent upon the actual amount realised by the catch and upon the division of that amount, shared amongst the fishermen. We have been very exercised in our mind as to how we could best assist those in whom we are most interested, the actual workers in the industry, and because of the nature of the


drafting of the Bill we found it extremely difficult to get an improvement. However, in the form in which it leaves the House we have provision made by the Government at our request under which the conditions of the workers within the general framework of the industry come within the purview of the board itself, and we hope that that may lead to some guarantee of improvement.
We oppose subsidies, qua subsidies, for the purpose of profit-making industry. If you are going to give subsidies we should be very much more satisfied if, instead of some of it percolating through in some instances to individual owners or combines who own trawlers and share the proceeds with the fishermen, the help given by the State were really going into the pockets and improving the conditions of life of the workers. In all the circumstances we do not think this Bill will be the last or that it will settle the prosperity of the herring industry. We shall not oppose it but we shall certainly continue to ask the Government from time to time about the conditions of the industry and what is being done to improve the lot of the fishermen.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will feel that we have spent the last 3½ hours very well in discussing this subject. I may not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised because some of the speeches amounted to questionnaires, and some of the questions would require a little examination. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked me a question the other night on a point on which I indicated that I would give an assurance on the Third Reading. He asked me to consider whether an Amendment to Clause 6 might be necessary to make sure that societies which were the subject of loans under that Clause would be of a mutual character having an actual mutual organisation. I have examined it carefully and I do not think any Amendment is necessary, because it is clear from the existing words that the societies must be of a mutual character. It is contemplated that the conditions of any loan will be subject to approval by the Minister and the Treasury, and full control exists in that way. We have the point in mind.
We have before us, on the occasion of this Debate, published for the first time as a Command Paper, the report of the Herring Industry Board. We all agree that it contains a great amount of matter of value. The discussion of it to-day has been helpful. Numerous references have been made to the work of the present Herring Industry Board, and I take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the efforts which the board has made to discharge what we must all recognise as being a very difficult task. The board has been hampered by various difficulties, the difficulties of the external markets and also by its own constitution which in our view, as a result of careful consideration and discussion, we feel has proved defective in practice. I would give one reason for our decision that the present constitution of the board is not desirable, in that it makes the work of the board difficult. The Herring Industry Board differs from other boards because it has various sections of the industry upon it, in contrast, for example, with the Milk Marketing Board which has only one activity. That fact makes the work of the board embarrassing and difficult and it has been decided, by general agreement in the industry, that the board should be reconstituted so as to omit from it representatives of the industry, and that it should consist entirely of a small number of independent members, supported by an Advisory Council.
In an estimation of the work of the board we have to bear in mind the difficulties with which they have to contend, external and internal. Our criticisms should bear those facts in mind and should not detract from our recognition of the services of the board and the efforts they have made on behalf of the industry. For example, questions have been raised about the day-to-day work of the board in facilitating foreign trade. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said that he wanted to get information about a difficulty which had arisen in Stornoway in regard to prices. That difficulty was settled in a satisfactory manner and a satisfactory price was obtained by the Herring Board within 48 hours by direct communication with the German organisation concerned. The board have been able to secure many successes of this nature in their day-to-day work in dealing with the problems that


arise. There is close co-operation, and there must continue to be close co-operation in the future, between the board and the appropriate Government Department. Some hon. Members are inclined to be critical about the slowness of such cooperation, but I can assure them, as one who has had experience of the Overseas Trade Department and of our British representatives abroad, that if a complaint is put into the hands of the appropriate Government Department, representations can very quickly be made to the country concerned. It is very important that the Herring Industry Board should have that close liaison with the appropriate Government Department, in this case the Board of Trade, of which the Overseas Trade Department is a part. That contact has been maintained in the day-to-day work of the board, and, as I have said, successes have been obtained.
I agree with most hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon that the question of markets is really the crux of the problem of the herring industry, but I cannot agree with some of them who suggest that that problem of markets has been neglected by the Government or the board. As far as the Government are concerned, far from neglecting the difficulties of the herring industry in dealings with foreign countries, every effort has been made to care for the herring export trade when negotiations were taking place. Specific concessions were secured, for example, in the trade agreements with Esthonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, Italy and Argentina, and also in the trade agreement with Germany. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the conditions in the herring industry will admit that the provisions in the trade agreement with Germany have been useful in the trade.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this in the Bill?

Mr. Colville: No, but criticism was made that the marketing problem which had to be faced—and the criticism came from all sides of the House—had not been fully dealt with by the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member was not here throughout the Debate.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that he is making a Third Reading speech, and I am raising the

question whether the points with which he is now dealing are in the Bill.

Mr. Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Shinwell: I was merely making an objection, and I was pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman a matter which I think it is my duty to point out.

Mr. Colville: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. The Agreements cover 89 per cent. of the exports of herring from the United Kingdom to foreign countries, that is, £1,900,000 out of £2,136,000. The question, for example, of the guaranteeing of credits—and this will be an integral part of the work that will be undertaken in assisting the Herring Industry Board—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent, whether the matters he is now raising are relevant to the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Reference has been made in the Debate to these matters. Sometimes they go so far that it is difficult to check them. However, as these matters have been raised it is only fair that the Minister should be allowed to reply to them.

Mr. Colville: I will endeavour to stray from the path no further than I can help, but I think the House will agree that I have to give an answer. The question of credits to facilitate the sale of herring has been raised in the Debate several times and it was the subject of comment in an article in the "Times" to-day. Already, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is prepared to give guarantees in connection with the export of herring, equal with other exports, in cases where it seems to be a sound proposition. Last year guarantees were given in respect of herring to Poland to the extent of £60,000. That represents a considerable facility for trade with that country. The Polish Guarantee has been commented upon to-day. The Trade Agreement with Poland already covers herring, and there is no reason to prevent a larger sale of herring to Poland. The question of credits is now fully under examination.
The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred


to the Russian guarantee. I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words about that. The hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) beams with joy and seems to think that that is a subject that might very well be dealt with. Let me tell him that the Russian market presents peculiar difficulties, because although the Agreement with Russia gives the Russian Government ample opportunity of spending in this country, on herring, the money that they have raised on the sale of goods supplied to us, they have not elected to make use of it in that way. I hope that the Debate that has taken place to-day will not be lost to the ears of those who are big sellers to us, and who might be larger purchasers of our goods. I hope also that the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday will fall on their ears, and especially his reference to the value of our Agreement with Russia if it is properly implemented. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland took the Government to task for not putting into the Russian Agreement a specific provision with regard to herring, I would remind him that the old Russian Agreement, the termination of which he complained about, did not contain any specific reference to herring. It was an ordinary commercial trade agreement which could be determined at six months' notice. There is no reason why under the present Agreement Russia should not buy a large number of herring.

Mr. Logan: I was a member of the committee which dealt with this Bill and I have not so far intervened in to-day's Debate, but I should like to know where I can find in the Bill any reference to the matters with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing.

Mr. Colville: There is a little history attached to this statement, but I do not intend to be led away on that tack. We are very much concerned with the question of foreign markets and we shall lend all the aid we properly can to the herring industry in securing a share of those foreign markets, and I cannot assent to the statement made by some hon. Members that we have not helped. Efforts have been made not only by agreements but in another way, to which I can safely refer, because it is a matter on which the Herring Industry Board

takes a clear line, and that is that we sent out some years ago to all our Consular representatives abroad instructions to give information to us on the prospects of selling herring. That information has been collated and the Herring Industry Board is working upon it.

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to state on what page or Clause in this Bill reference is made to these matters?

Mr. Boothby: May I suggest that those who have a direct and practical interest in the herring industry and who know the Bill can do very well under the guidance of Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I am very anxious that every phase of discussion that can help the Herring Industry Bill should be introduced, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not desirable that the same rules that apply to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) and myself should apply also to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: The same rules should apply to all Members of this House. I have already dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member. I think he will remember that I did try to check some hon. Members, but a good many of the matters that are being referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were mentioned.

Mr. Logan: May I remind the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that he was not present at the Committee, and that I never missed a meeting of the Committee. Therefore, his observation falls flat.

Mr. Boothby: I was present at the Committee.

Mr. Colville: Perhaps I can make the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) wise on one point. He is confusing two kinds of fish. He suggests that what I am saying is irrelevant to the Bill. As a matter of fact it arises on Clause 3, which deals with the payment of certain expenses of the board. He will find all the information that he wants there.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) complained that we are going to run counter to the


direct advice of the Herring Industry Board by enlarging by a direct subsidy the total size of the herring fleet, and that we are therefore making it more difficult for those engaged in the herring fishing industry to make a living. The hon. Member has not followed our deliberations very closely, because on several occasions it has been made perfectly plain that the purpose of the Government was that a scheme should be prepared to consider the scrapping of vessels and their replacement by motor-driven drifters. He wanted to know where it was in the Bill. I do not think it was necessary to put it in the Bill, but if the hon. Member wants to be quite clear on the point, I would refer him to the declaration of policy which has been made on various occasions—to the two speeches I made and to the two occasions on which the Under-Secretary also made it plain beyond doubt that our policy was not one of an extension of the total numbers, but of replacement. I do not think the hon. Member can complain that he has been left in any doubt as to our policy.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) put nine or 10 questions to me. I cannot answer them all, but there are some which, I think, it is proper I should answer. It is not necessary that the members of the new board should all be full-time men: It will depend on circumstances. As to what new powers are to be given to the board, we must, I think, wait and see. The hon. Member also asked whether there would be a proper representation of English members on the advisory council. He suggested that the answer should be given by the Minister of Agriculture, but if he will accept it from me that the question will be taken into account, I hope he will be satisfied. He also asked whether the scheme could be wrongfully used by a speculator who got a loan, built a new boat and then sold it at a profit. That is clearly outside the intention of the scheme, and we shall see that proper safeguards are inserted. The hon. Member spoke of longshore boatmen. I cannot add anything to what has been said on previous occasions.

Mr. Loftus: There was the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself, whether if there is a loss on a subsidised boat, on the loan necessary to build the

boat, part of that loss will fall on the steam drifters?

Mr. Colville: I can best answer that by quoting the relevant passage from the Herring Industry Act, 1935, that is, Section 9 (6):
If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Ministers and the Treasury that any sum representing the principle of an advance made to the board for the purposes referred to in sub-section (3) of this section, or part of such an advance cannot be repaid, the Treasury may direct that the liability of the board to the Ministers shall be reduced to the extent of that sum.
Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that it will be in the nature of a levy, which the hon. Member fears. As to the composition of the advisory council, I cannot go into that in further detail as to the numbers we have in mind or the places of meeting. That will depend largely on circumstances. No regulations have yet been framed with regard to the proceedings of the council, but paragraph (3) of the First Schedule provides that, subject to any directions which may be given by the Ministers, the council shall have power to regulate its own procedure.

Sir A. Sinclair: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the new board will make a fresh start with fresh personnel?

Mr. Colville: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press me on that point. He means, will there be an entirely clean sweep of the old board? I would rather not give an absolute undertaking on that point, because in consultation with my right hon. Friend I want to consider who will best discharge these duties, and in those circumstances I think it will be unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to press me on the matter.

Sir A. Sinclair: They will need to have the confidence of the industry.

Mr. Colville: The important thing is that the board shall act in collaboration and good spirit with the industry. We have that fully in mind, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press me further on the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: The Secretary of State has not yet said anything about giving consideration to those employed in the industry—whether a basic wage for the men will be considered?

Mr. Colville: I did not hear the hon. Member's speech, but I will read it. The board will not be a wage-fixing authority, but it has powers to advise on the conditions in the industry and any recommendation it may make to the appropriate Minister will be taken into account.
I hope the House will give the Third Reading to this Bill. It represents a practical and determined effort to help an industry which has to fight great difficulties; an industry which is struggling with real difficulties at home and real difficulties in foreign markets. It is meeting with greater success in the home market, and I, for one, think it will meet with an increased measure of success in foreign markets if it has the ability to compete. It is this ability which we are striving to give to the industry by the Bill, which I now recommend to the House.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Modification of sentences.)

The power conferred on a court of summary jurisdiction by Section fifty-four of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, to alter or modify a sentence shall be exercisable without requiring the attendance of the accused, and, without prejudice to the generality of the said power, shall include power in the case where payment of a fine by instalments has been ordered, to reduce the amount, or allow further time for the payment, of any instalment (whether the time for payment thereof has or has not expired), or to order payment of the fine, so far as unpaid, by instalments of smaller amounts, or at longer intervals than originally ordered.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.40 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is in fulfilment of an undertaking given in the Committee stage. It has two objects. In the first place, to throw into greater relief the power of a court of summary jurisdiction to alter or modify

a sentence without requiring the attendance of the accused, and also to adapt that power to a new power of imposing a fine by instalments. I understand that hon. Members who have pressed for this concession have indicated that the new Clause satisfies them.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: The new Clause meets the promises made by the Government in Committee, and I desire to raise only one point. It makes provision for the modification of a sentence, and it also makes it possible that a poor man is not sent to gaol merely because he is too poor to pay the money fine. The new Clause makes it possible for a fine to be paid by instalments, and if anything is brought to the notice of the court there can be a modification or reduction of the fine. That will be of advantage in the interests of criminal administration in Scotland. But it is a pity that the Lord Advocate has not seen his way to extend the Clause a little further and provided for evening courts to be held in Scotland instead of morning courts, which in many instances create difficulty and add to the penalty imposed on a poor person. There was a promise in Committee that this point would be considered, and I had hoped that it would have been provided for in the new Clause. However, we are prepared to accept the Clause as fulfilling a pledge given in Committee.

Mr. Maxton: I want to ask whether the new Clause meets the point raised in Committee about imprisonment automatically following failure to pay one instalment of the fine?

The Lord Advocate: I am not sure to what the hon. Members refers, but this Clause was submitted to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) about a week ago, and he wrote telling me that it met his point.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(S. 4 (1) of 61 and 62 Vict. c. 36, to apply to certain offences.)

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, shall apply as regards any offence mentioned in the First Schedule to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, in like manner as the said sub-section applies as regards the offences therein referred to.

(2) Section twenty-six of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, is hereby repealed.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.43 P.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is purely technical. It arises in this way. When the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, was passed a change was accidentally made in the law of evidence as it had existed since the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. Since 1898 the wife or husband of an accused person has been a competent witness either for the prosecution or the defence in regard to certain offences, but by an accident that privilege was restricted by the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to statutory offences and attention was drawn to the matter only a few weeks ago in the course of a prosecution. The mistake is manifestly an accidental drafting error, and the purpose of the new Clause is to restore the position to what it was prior to the Act of 1937.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c. 65, S. 33 (2).)

Paragraph (2) of Section thirty-three of the Summary jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908 (which empowers a court in certain circumstances to hear and dispose of a case in the absence of the accused), shall have effect as if for the words "involving the imposition of a pecuniary penalty only" there were substituted the words "for which a sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The main purpose of this new Clause is to effect a slight improvement in the procedure laid down in Clause 4 of the Bill in relation to obviating the necessity of personal attendance by accused persons in courts at a distance from the places where they reside. The House will be aware that in Clause 4 the privileges which exist in that respect are considerably extended. The purpose of this new

Clause is to make a slight improvement because of a difficulty which came to light only a few weeks ago. Since 1908, it has been possible to dispense with the attendance of an accused person in a court of summary jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions into which I need not enter now, where the offence with which he is charged is one "involving the imposition of a pecuniary penalty only." That was clearly understood until a comparatively short time ago, when the difficulty arose that, under certain provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, in addition to a pecuniary penalty, there may follow such consequences as the endorsement of a licence. From that point of view, in one court objection was taken to allowing the proceedings to go on in the absence of the accused person.

Mr. Westwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that that case was not in Kirkcaldy, so that I am cleared?

The Lord Advocate: It was not in Kirk-caldy. The object of this new Clause is to make a slight alteration in the terms of the 1908 Act so as to make it plain that what justifies procedure in the absence of the accused person is the impossibility of imposing a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance. In 1908, when the Summary Jurisdiction Act was passed, there were, broadly speaking, only two kinds of penalties, fined or imprisonment, and when legislation in 1908 referred to an offence
involving the imposition of a pecuniary penalty only,
what was really meant was an offence for which imprisonment could not be imposed in the first instance. In this new Clause, I propose to substitute for those words the words:
for which a sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed.
The effect will be simply to meet that borderline case which has come into existence since, in which a licence may be endorsed or suspended. The result will be, on the lines of the wishes expressed by hon. Members in the Second Reading Debate and in Committee, to render it unnecessary for, let us say, a motorist in London or the South of England to go up to Inverness or Aberdeen personally in order to answer a


prosecution, it may be for a relatively trivial offence, in regard to which he is content to leave the matter to the representation of his solicitor.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 41, s. 20.)

After Sub-section (2) of Section twenty of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933 (which Section relates to admissions by parties in trials on indictment) the following Sub-section shall be added:
(3) Any reference in this Section to proof or admission of a document shall include a reference to proof or admission as to the person by whom a document was written, executed or received, and as to the time and place of such writing, execution, or receipt."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like, in dealing with this new Clause, to refer to an Amendment in my name on the Paper later to leave out Clause 9, as this new Clause is associated with the proposal to leave out Clause 9. Hon. Members will recall that Clause 9 of the Bill contains a proposal that admissions of fact should be competent in prosecutions on indictment. In the Second Reading Debate, and subsequently in the Committee stage, considerable anxiety was expressed from many quarters as to the sufficiency of the safeguards which should be added to the introduction of that admitted novelty in procedure, and I undertook to examine very closely various proposals and suggestions that were made. Having done so, I tell the House frankly that I have found it impossible to devise safeguards satisfactory to me which it would be possible for me to recommend to the House. Therefore, I have adopted the course of putting down an Amendment to leave out Clause 9. At the same time, however, one of the reasons for including Clause 9 in the Bill arose from the fact that the present provisions of Section 20 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, which relates to admissions of documents as distinct from admissions of fact has proved inoperative, as the drafting was too narrow. Therefore, as part of the alternative proposal to Clause 9,

I ask the House to approve of an Amendment of the terms of Section 20 of the 1933 Act to the limited extent of expanding those words "admit a document." The words which I propose are:
(3) Any reference in this Section to proof or admission of a document shall include a reference to proof or admission as to the person by whom a document was written, executed, or received, and as to the time and place of such writing, execution, or receipt.
Those are the facts in relation to a document without which an admission of the document would be useless. Those are the facts which it is common practice in Scotland to admit in civil cases nearly every time a civil case takes place. With that slight alteration, I think that Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act will achieve some saving of time and expense in the conduct of trials, and as the wider proposal regarding admissions of fact is out of the way, I think that limited improvement in the existing law is one which can be strongly recommended to the House.

Mr. Westwood: This new Clause is in fulfilment of a pledge that was given in Committee, and hon. Members on this side raise no objection to it, since it is an improvement.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of Jurisdiction as to person fined.)

7.52 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert:
No such order shall be made except on the application of the person on whom the fine was imposed, and any such application may be made either in open court by that person or by a solicitor or a person, not being a solicitor, who satisfies the court as to his authority to do so, or in writing addressed to the clerk of the court.
This Amendment is self-explanatory, and I will simply add that it is inserted to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his hon. Friends, who desire that a transfer of a case from one court to another shall not take place unless the accused person himself wants it. This provision is drafted in terms which, I think, fully carry out that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Admissions on proceedings on indictment.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I have already explained the reasons for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: This Bill does not give us perfection in connection with criminal procedure in Scotland, but undoubtedly it is a big improvement. We welcome the improvements that are contained in it, and we hope that in the very near future the Government will introduce legislation with the object of still further simplifying and making more easy and just the criminal procedure in Scotland.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood). This Bill ought to make a very substantial improvement in the treatment of offenders in Scotland. H it is administered fully and generously by the magistrates, it ought to lead to a very substantial reduction in the prison population of Scotland. However, I hope that the Scottish Office will not regard the passing of this Bill as excluding them from considering the whole question of prison reform when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is introducing a Measure of that description for England. There is still outstanding, in the matter of the treatment of criminals and offenders in Scotland, the question of how those who are sent to prison ought to be treated when they get there. In my view, experience and knowledge, prison conditions in Scotland are infinitely worse than they are in England. If there is a crying need, as has been intimated by the Government and the Home Secretary, for modification and amelioration of the prison system in England, there is a greater need for modification and amelioration in the Scottish system. In supporting this Measure, and recognising that it will relieve a large number of people in Scotland who have never been inside a prison, I hope that the Government will also have regard to those whom the Measure does not save from prison, and see that the treatment

of those who go to prison is made more humane and more in keeping with modern ideas.

Orders of the Day — NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.57 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a simple one, and I hope that it will prove uncontroversial. Its object, as stated at the beginning, is to amend Section 90 of the Naval Discipline Act. That section applies to the officers and men of ships, not men of war, which are taken up by the Admiralty in time of war or in time of emergency for naval purposes. The section in question needs amendment for three reasons. The first is that, as it is framed at present, it applies only in time of war. Cases of emergency may arise both before the outbreak of hostilities and also when hostilities do eventually break out. In times of emergency, the Admiralty might wish to avail themselves of the services of vessels and take them up just as though the country were at war; but it would be impossible, as the Naval Discipline Act is to-day, to take up such vessels and put their crews under the Naval Discipline Act.
Further, in these times it seems to be the fashion not to declare war, so that a situation might easily arise when hostilities had broken out and nobody knew whether we were at war or not. That is one important consideration which has to be borne in mind, and therefore, the words "in time of war" have been dispensed with altogether. Another provision of Section 90, as drafted at present, refers to the ship's companies, crews and officers of these merchant vessels which are taken up by the Admiralty, and applies to them as ship's companies the Naval Discipline Act. Supposing that, as frequently happened in the last War, men serving in one of these vessels were transferred to another, or sent ashore for training purposes, or sent to hospital, strictly speaking, from a purely legal point of view, it has been held that the


Naval Discipline Act would therefore cease to apply to those men. That would be obviously an unsatisfactory position while they were still in the service of the Government, and serving under naval rules. That difficulty will be overcome by the Bill, which will apply to all men signing an agreement to serve in those circumstances.
The third point is that frequently difficulties arise as to the exact status of men when they transfer from their former occupations to the naval service. In their former occupation, they may have been officers or petty officers, or ratings, and it was not always clear exactly what their position was when they came under naval discipline. The Bill will give power to settle those questions by Order in Council. Such difficulties as I have mentioned arise owing to the great divergencies in the kinds of shipping which the Admiralty take over in a time of emergency. For instance, they might take over a small motor boat with a crew of two men who could officially claim to hold high rank, one as captain and the other as chief engineer, but who could hardly expect to hold corresponding positions in the Royal Naval Service. That matter, as I say, will be settled by Order in Council, and no man will transfer from one Service to the other and come under the Naval Discipline Act without first knowing whether he is going in as an officer, petty officer or rating.
That brings me to the last word which I have to say upon the Bill. Despite any fears which any hon. Member may entertain that there is anything in the Bill which can possibly be said to savour of compulsion, that is not the case. The Bill is not the thin end of any wedge. It is based purely on the voluntary principle, and no man can come under its operation unless he voluntarily enters into an engagement with the Admiralty to serve His Majesty.

Mr. Logan: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether, in regard to the ordinary Mercantile Marine, the Bill will make any difference to men who take service in the special branch that will be under the direction of the Government?

Mr. Cooper: The men to whom the Bill applies will already be serving in a ship which is taken over by the Government. When the ship is taken over a man will

have to sign a special form which will say: "I agree to serve under the Government in this ship."

Mr. Logan: Will the convoy branch of the service come under that particular kind of regime?

Mr. Cooper: I am not clear what the hon. Member means.

Mr. Logan: I am taking it as being the same as it was in the last War when we had special ships going out on convoy. Would that particular type of service for merchant ships come within this proposal?

Mr. Cooper: The merchant ships were not the convoys but were convoyed. The convoy was provided by men-of-war, and the men in merchant ships under convoy will be men who have remained in the Merchant Service. This refers to ships taken over for naval duties.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: As far as we can see, the question of compulsion is safeguarded in the terms Of the Bill, but there are one or two points on which I wish to ask for information before the Bill receives a Second Reading. I am a little disturbed by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman made more than one reference to the taking over of ships. As I read the. Bill, there is no question here of taking over ships. The Bill is concerned only with personnel. First, I wish to ask whether the repeal of Section go of the Naval Discipline Act includes 90 (a), and 90 (b). Secondly, what bearing has the Bill on the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve? Does it apply to these organisations or is it something entirely separate and distinct from them? I take it that the men to whom the Bill applies are men who are already in some way in the sea service?

Mr. Cooper: Men in ships which may be taken over.

Mr. Ammon: They may be fishermen. In any case, they will be men who are in some way engaged at sea, and they will be asked to register their willingness, when called upon at any time, to serve His Majesty. The Bill also stipulates that such persons are to be under naval discipline whether on board ship or not. Does that mean that when a man is pur-


suing his ordinary occupation and there is no emergency, he is still liable to be subjected to naval discipline? It is on a few points of that kind that more information is desirable, but, as far as one can see, the Bill is an improvement on existing conditions and we are not likely to offer any opposition to it if the right hon. Gentleman will deal with those points which I have mentioned.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Having heard the First Lord's speech I am sure we all concur in the view that the Bill serves a necessary purpose. I rise not to challenge its main purposes but to enter a protest against the way in which it is drafted. In Clause 1, Sub-section (1), occur these words referring to the Naval Discipline Act:
The provisions of this Act shall, with such modifications and adaptations (if any) of those provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe.
It is true that the Bill proceeds in Subsection (2) to say that an Order in Council made under the Section may prescribe a certain matter mainly the rank of the persons who come under the operation of the Bill. But to my mind Subsection (2) does not comprise any words of limitation. It does not appear to limit the generality of the words in Sub-section (1) to the effect that the Naval Discipline Act will apply to those persons, with any modifications and adaptations that may be made by Order in Council. There will be no Parliamentary check on those Orders in Council, and we cannot tell when we pass this Bill exactly what is to happen or what code of discipline is to be applied to the people who are subject to this Measure. The words which I have quoted place a complete dispensing power in the hands of the Government of the day and that, I submit, is a very serious matter.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1866, sets out the whole code of naval discipline, and, in particular, the way in which courts-martial are to be conducted. To give one example, it is provided in Section 58 (8) that the prosecutor shall not sit on any court-martial for the trial of any prisoner whom he prosecutes. That is a necessary and salutory provision, but it would be possible under the terms of the Bill to dispense with that safeguard in the case of the people who come within those

terms. It is also provided in Section 69 that when a court-martial has taken place, the judge-advocate or deputy judge-advocate or person officiating as deputy judge-advocate
shall transmit with as much expedition as may be, the original proceedings or a complete authenticated copy thereof, and the original sentence of every court-martial attended by him to the commander-in-chief, or senior officer, who shall transmit them to the Secretary of the Admiralty for the time being and any person tried by court-martial shall be entitled on remand to a copy of such proceedings.
There, again, is a very necessary provision obviously designed to make possible review at a later stage of the proceedings of a court-martial. But it will be possible under this dispensing power, if I read the Bill aright, to cut out that safeguard as well. One could give other examples from the Naval Discipline Act. The Bill, therefore, seems to place a very wide power in the hands of the Admiralty because these Orders in Council would be passed on the advice of the Admiralty. In other words, we are considering here an example of what is generally known as the "Henry VIII Clause" which has, before now, been considered by this House. It may be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that this type of Clause was considered with great care by the Committee on Ministers' Powers—the Donoughmore Committee—on which all parties were represented and which presented a unanimous report after three years' consideration. May I remind the House of their conclusion on Clauses if this kind:
There can be no doubt of the extreme convenience, from the point of view of those charged with the duty of bringing into effective operation a far reaching measure of reform, of a dispensing power such as that contained in the so-called Henry VIII Clause.' But again the argument of convenience may be pushed too far. Even though it may be admitted that Parliament itself has conferred these powers upon Ministers, and must be presumed to have done so with the knowledge of what it was doing, it cannot but be regarded as inconsistent with the principles of Parliamentary government that the subordinate law-making authority should be given by the superior law-making authority, power to amend a statute which has been passed by the superior authority. It is true that the power has been sparingly used and that it has been used with the best possible motives. It may also be that the exercise of the power has not, in practice, given ground for complaint. None the less, it is a power which may attract the hostility and suspicion of persons affected by its exercise,


who, if they are aggrieved by a particular exercise of the power, are tempted to impute to those who exercise it motives which do not in fact exist.
That was their argument, but they went on to make a very definite recommendation with regard to this type of Clause, because on page 65 of their report they say:
The 'Henry VIII Clause' should

(a) never be used except for the sole purpose of bringing an Act into operation;
(b) be subject to a time limit of one year from the passing of the Act."

We are constantly told, and I have often been told at Question Time by the former Prime Minister, that the Government are always bearing in mind the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, but they do not appear to have borne them in mind on this occasion, and it appears to me that when we have what appears to be an obvious departure from their recommendations, we ought at least to have a word of explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill as to why they have been departed from.
I do not dissent from the main purposes of the Bill, but at a later stage my hon. Friends and I propose to put down one or two Amendments dealing with this point. Personally, I should like to see these words which I have quoted, giving this dispensing power, cut out of the Bill altogether, but if the Government are not able to agree to that, I would make two suggestions—first, that these Orders in Council should not become effective without the affirmative assent of the two Houses of Parliament, for after all we are dealing with naval discipline, which closely affects the rights of the subject; and, secondly, I would suggest that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee that I have just read out, and that the exercise of this dispensing power should be confined to a period of 12 months from the passing of the Act. I hope the First Lord will give serious consideration to the point that I have endeavoured to raise.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I think the Government are justified in asking for a Bill to maintain discipline in the Navy, and in what I am going to say I am concerned only with a question of interpretation. I am at a loss to understand, in regard to Subsection (2) of Clause, why there should

be any differentiation. Perhaps it is my lack of knowledge in regard to naval matters, but I am wondering why it is that the rule applicable to the Navy could not be applied all round and why some other system has got to be made operative in this particular case, because it says:
An Order in Council under this section nay direct that, subject to such exceptions as may in particular cases be made by or on behalf of the Admiralty, persons of any such class as may be specified in the Order…
Have we not enough powers already, when one takes service in His Majesty's Navy, to be able to keep a man absolutely under discipline? As I say, I am ignorant in regard to the rules of the Navy and do not know what they do, but I wonder why a special regulation has to be brought into existence, although I am in agreement with the idea that discipline ought to be maintained in the Service.

8.17 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): Several interesting points have been raised by hon. Members, and perhaps I may deal first with the hon. Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Logan), as he has just completed his speech and his point remains in my mind. The object of Subsection (2) of Clause 1 is merely that an Order in Council shall be issued to say what ranks different types of persons in the Merchant Service or fishing fleets, shall have when they take on these engagements. It has no other purpose than that. With regard to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), he referred to what my right hon. Friend said about our taking over ships. We thought it was better, when drafting this Bill, to refer to the persons rather than to the ships, because this Clause deals with the discipline of persons and not with ships, but in effect we do not intend to take these men until we actually take on a ship in which they are serving. They will then be asked whether they will come with the ship that the Admiralty is taking over for one purpose or another. They will be offered an engagement form to sign, and if they like to sign it, they will come under the terms of the Naval Discipline Act and will be to all intents and purposes part of the armed forces of the Crown.

Mr. Ammon: Does that mean that it would be possible for the Navy to commandeer a ship and then, afterwards if some of the crew did not agree to sign on, they would find themselves out of employment?

Colonel Llewellin: That is the position now.

Mr. Ammon: In time of war.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, in time of war, when there are general powers for commandeering ships. These ships that we take up in a time of emergency would probably have to be taken up by agreement, but then the personnel would either go on serving under the new conditions, by a new agreement to serve the Admiralty in these cases, or they would be free to say, "We will undertake no such engagement," and then, of course, they would have to find other employment. The hon. Member for North Camberwell asked also whether Sections 90A and 90B are being repealed by this Bill, and the answer is that they are not and that they remain effective just the same. He asked whether the Bill concerns the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The answer is that it does not, and that they are a quite different personnel. He further asked why it should apply to men whether they were on a ship's books or not. I think my right hon. Friend explained that in the War it was necessary to have a training reserve, that men had to be transferred to it, and that, of course, some of them, as many of us have to do either in war or in peace, had to be admitted to hospital. If they were admitted to naval hospitals, it was doubtful whether the Section as it was previously then applied to them. That is the reason why the Clause is drawn as it is.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised a more complicated point, on a matter which he has to some extent made, if I may say so, his own baby, and he is always anxious to find provisions such as we have in this Bill with regard to modifications by Orders in Council. He will realise, as he and I travelled the same circuit together, that I fully appreciate the point which he has made. I am not going to give him either of the assurances for which he asked, but I am going to give him another assurance, namely, that I will personally look into this matter before the Committee

stage, and if we find, after due consideration and consultation in the Department, that we can dispense with these words or modify them in some way, we shall certainly do so at a later stage of this Bill.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for that assurance, but surely he will give us some word of explanation why the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee have been completely ignored in this case.

Colonel Llewellin: It was thought that it might be necessary to have greater elasticity with regard to this personnel. No such sinister purposes as were suggested by the hon. Member occurred to us, and we did not need to treat this personnel any differently than the ordinary naval personnel, but I will keep the undertaking that I gave, that we will carefully consider these words, and I think that is the most that the hon. Member can expect me to say on the Second Reading of this Bill. I therefore hope that, with that assurance, he will now allow us to get the Second Reading, and possibly he or ourselves will have Amendments down on the Committee stage.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Logan: If this Bill passes, it practically changes the position of a man and puts him into the naval service, and I wonder whether any liability arises from the point of view of compensation in regard to injuries and, if so, what is the status of the individual who will now come under naval discipline and who may meet with an injury. How is he to be treated? There is nothing in this Bill that deals with the change of status, but there is something in the life of a man that is being changed in regard to the new service which he enters, and one wonders what the position will be after that change.

Colonel Llewellin: The position of the man who engages under the new Section will be the same as that of the man who engaged under the old Section, except for the fact that when he goes ashore, perhaps for training or to go into hospital, he will still be under the Naval Discipline Act. It will also be possible to take him up a week or two earlier in an emergency period than was possible under the old Section of the Act. With regard to his rights when he is taken up, they are left unaffected by this modification of


the Statute. It was found that they were dealt with by special rules during the last War, and no doubt similar special rules will be made in those cases if we unfortunately have to call these men up, either in time of emergency or in time of war.

Mr. Logan: As I understand it, the individual or a crew will be commandeered in a time of emergency. They will voluntarily go over and sign special articles, and the Government will then take control of them. The responsibility for them, therefore, becomes that of the Government. Their ordinary form of employment is ended and they have accepted service and come within its discipline, and, therefore, they are in Government service. I am wondering who is to bear responsibility for them, because the late owners with whom they were serving have no further control over them.

Colonel Llewellin: The Government completely bear all responsibility for these men when once they are taken on into the Naval Service.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Major Harvie Watt.]

Orders of the Day — ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Board of Trade to obtain information as to commodities which in the opinion of the Board would be essential for the vital needs of the community in the event of war and to make provision for the maintenance of reserves of such commodities, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the said Act and of any expenses incurred by the Board before the passing of the said Act for the purpose of creating or assisting the creation of a reserve of any such commodity as aforesaid; and
(b) the making out of the Consolidated Fund of temporary advances to any fund established by the said Act for the purpose of meeting such expenses as aforesaid, but so that any such advance shall be repaid out of the fund to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September next following the end of the financial year in which the advance was made."

Orders of the Day — ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to obtain information.)

8.30 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out, "available for storing and."
I want to assure the President of the Board of Trade that I am not moving this Amendment in any hostile spirit. I agree entirely with the policy behind the Bill, but I have one or two criticisms to make of the methods to be employed. With your permission, Captain Bourne, I will say a few words about all my Amendments on Clause r, because they are consequential one on the other.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member's Amendments to Clause r form one composite Amendment, it would be convenient if he dealt with them on this first Amendment.

Sir W. Smithers: The substance of my Amendments is in the second one, to insert in page r, line 13, a new Sub-section:
The Board of Trade may by notice served upon any owner of storage accommodation suitable for the preservation and maintenance of an essential commodity require him to make periodical and other returns at such times and containing such particulars as may be specified in the notice as to the extent and nature of such storage accommodation and as to the prices usually charged for the use thereof, and shall maintain a register in which such particulars shall be entered.
I wish to secure two objects—first, a collection of information from all sources concerning storage accommodation throughout the country; and, second, the maintenance of a register for that purpose. If it is the policy of the Government to store food, it is essential that the Government should have full knowledge of the details of all storage accommodation in the country. I have moved the Amendment really to draw attention to what I am told by people whom I know and can trust, who are interested in the business and who say that the present storage accommodation, especially in the big ports, is in a chaotic state, and that there is a great difference between the charges for storage in the ports and for storage in private warehouses.
If the Government have these particulars, all is well, but I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the recent purchases by the Government, who is storing those purchases? I do not press him to tell me if it is against the public interest. What is more important, what prices are being charged for the storage? Are the prices those charged by the port authorities or those charged by private warehouses? I know the Government's policy is to build up reserves of commodities, but I feel that by their methods the Government are preventing that policy being carried out. Traders know perfectly well that large arrivals are coming into the country in the next few weeks or months because of Government purchases, and they are, therefore, living from hand to mouth and carrying the minimum stocks. It would be much better to take governmental action to provide information as to what storage accommodation there is in the country and let the traders use that accommodation and carry the stocks. Thus the policy of the Government would be carried out, for, after all, the job of the Government is policy and not to go into business.

8.34 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks and I realise the spirit in which he moved this Amendment. I have been in correspondence with him and I know the points that he has in mind with regard to storage at the ports. I would point out to him, however, that that is not quite the point which is raised by this Amendment. Under this Clause as at present drafted the information which we are able to seek can be sought only from those who are concerned with the particular essential commodity information about which we require. If the Amendment were passed we should be in a position to serve notices, with all the penalties attached, upon anyone who has a little room in which wheat or sugar or some other essential commodity could be stored. That seems to be extending the scope of our inquiries far beyond any useful point and might possibly cause inconvenience to a large number of people without serving any useful purpose. After all, it is from those who are concerned that we want to know how much they have got and also

what storage they have available. I do not want to go into the whole question of port storage, important as that is, because it is rather beyond the scope of the Bill. With regard to the commodities which we have already bought, no doubt during the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member heard an account of the methods that we are adopting and he will then realise that we have not so far made excessive use of port storage. I would ask him to believe, with reference to the question of wheat, that we are making use of the traders, that the accommodation is being provided by the traders, that we have assurances from them as to the maintenance of normal stocks, and that from any knowledge I possess I cannot think that the purchases of wheat have had the effect, as he says, of causing the trade to reduce its normal stocks.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Creation of reserves.)

8.37 P.m.

Sir W. Smithers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I have put down this Amendment only in order to raise one point, but it is a point of importance. I think that by Sub-section (1) the Government have taken all the powers which they require to achieve the objects of their policy of accumulating reserves of essential commodities in this country, and that Subsection (2) is not necessary and is, further, wrong in principle. I will take as an example the transactions up to date. It is very difficult indeed for a private individual who is not connected with the business in any way to find out the exact details, but I am informed—I speak subject to correction—that the Government bought about £8,000,000 worth of wheat during their recent transactions, and that within a few days there was a serious loss on those transactions at the current market price of the day.
I am also told that they bought about 100,000 tons of whale oil, at £13 5s. or £13 10s. a ton, and I am informed by responsible people who are not disgruntled in any way—I want the President to believe that I mention these facts only in the interests of the taxpayers—that they


paid from £1 to 30s. per ton too much for that whale oil. It is true that there is a selling pool for whale oil, and I understand that the Government employed a broker, in whom they had every confidence, to purchase this amount of whale oil. The mere fact of an individual who was not an ordinary dealer in whale oil coming into the market at once aroused suspicion, aroused interest. Without accusing anybody of being dishonest or working against the Government in any way I say the mere fact that this individual came in at once set everybody, not only in the British market but all over the world, including America, saying, "The British Government are buying whale oil." I can only tell the President that the market think it was a most stupid procedure to adopt.
It is true that there is a selling pool. It is no good trying to keep it secret, because everybody knows. The selling pool are Unilever and the Southern Oil and, I think, one other associated interest. They are reputable, patriotic people, and I want to ask the President why they were not trusted in the same way as the people who purchased the wheat for the Government were trusted. Dealing in whale oil is a very technical business. The amount available each year is well known—it varies between 450,000 and 550,000 tons—and the demand is well known, and if the Government had given the order to or asked the co-operation of one of these big dealers no suspicion would have been aroused and the purchase would have been made, I honestly believe, at a much cheaper price than the Government paid. I want to ask why the men, the companies, who deal in whale oil were not consulted and were not asked to co-operate, which they would have done willingly and loyally, with the Government, instead of an outside firm being employed.
I want to ask the President whether he will not use to the full the powers for which he is asking under Sub-section (1). The policy of the Government is evidently to increase food storage in this country, and if they would make up their minds whether they want a three months' supply or a six months' supply, and would ask the trade—the dealers, the millers, the importers—to co-operate with them, I do not believe there would be any necessity to put into force Sub-section (2), which I am proposing should be left out of the

Clause. I would point out that to increase storage in this country is a very expensive business. It will increase the cost of living very considerably. Storing, bargeing and port dues are very heavy items.
If it is the policy of the Government to store whatever they consider necessary, whether three months' or six months' or nine months' supply, we have, of course, to bear the cost, because for the safety of the country we must store the food, but I do ask that the Government should not go into the markets themselves. Let them use the powers under Subsection (1). If they say to traders, "We want you to help us to increase the food supplies stored in the country," it may be necessary to give them say, 3 per cent. on the money that is lying idle—[Interruption]—well, that is the market price—while the food is stored. I understand that the storage capacity for wheat in this country in public warehouses is about 1,000,000 tons, and in private stores about 750,000 tons. The consumption of wheat in this country is about 6,750,000 tons a year, the home production is about 1,750,000 tons—I am giving round figures—and the imports just over 5,000,000 tons. Therefore, from those figures, we have a storage capacity for about three months' supplies.
I know nothing about this matter technically, of course, but I am told that the storage capacity is far greater than for a three months' supply if it were properly organised, and if storage were available at an economic rent. It is important in the national interest and in a crisis that the Government should know what is the storage capacity of this country, and I would ask them whether they possess that information.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point does not arise.

Sir W. Smithers: I have made one or two destructive criticisms; may I make a constructive criticism? It is that instead of going into the market and buying essential commodities themselves the Government might avoid taking any market risk and avoid any market loss to the taxpayers. They may know that in the next six months or so x amount of foodstuffs will come to this country; would it not be possible for them to say to the exporters from other countries: "Send the stuff here now, and we will advance you


75 per cent. of the value of it"? That would be a perfectly good business transaction. I believe that if the Government indicated their policy on the lines of Subsection (1) and if the traders were given sufficient encouragement, there would be no need for the Government to take business risks. Let them give the traders the help and encouragement they want and the Government will have all the food supplies, for six months, nine months or whatever they require in this country. It would be a much less risk than losing on 100,000 tons of whale oil or the market risk on buying a large amount of wheat.

8.48 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the Committee. I do not want to argue the matter at length, but I am sure that no adequate and satisfactory system of food storage can be arranged unless the Government have power under both Subsection (1) and Sub-section (2). The plan cannot be satisfactorily and thoroughly carried out under Sub-section (1) alone, because some use will have to be made of Sub-section (2). I would add even to have the best chance of making use of Sub-section (1) it is good for the Government to have the power proposed in Subsection (2).

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment assumed that every essential commodity governed by Sub-section (2) was an imported one. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to tell us how he intends to use his powers under Sub-section (2) and whether he intends to acquire and store essential commodities that are produced at home as well as those that are imported from overseas. It would be a grave mistake if the Government were to use their powers under Sub-section (2) merely for imported commodities. The effect would be very harsh on home producers, because more foodstuffs would be coming in from abroad at a time when home producers are not in a very easy position.
I would take a concrete case. I do not expect that the Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to acquire and store eggs, but if they intend to do so, would they consider using the National Mark system and acquiring and storing home-produced eggs instead of imported

eggs? At the present time imports of eggs have increased by 20 per cent. over the last year, and it would be very dangerous for the Government to embark upon any plan for acquiring and storing foreign eggs. If they were to acquire and store home-produced eggs the effect would be beneficial upon the English poultry and egg market, as well as having a great value in a time of emergency. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to give the assurance, when replying on the Amendment, that home-produced essential commodities will not be forgotten by the Government.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The Amendment would have the result, of course, of depriving the Government of any power to acquire these foodstuffs on their own account. I need not take very much time in explaining why it would be most undesirable to deprive the Government of that power. In the first place, my hon. Friend clearly had in mind only one aspect of the food storage problem. When I was explaining the Bill on Second Reading I divided the problem into two. One was the storage which he has described already of essential foodstuffs coming in from abroad or produced at home, the reserves of which were increased. The other was the storage in different parts of the country of immediately consumable goods to meet dislocation in each locality. It may not be possible for special stores such as might be required for dealing with the evacuation of some city to be arranged for under the provisions of Sub-section (1). The second point is that I agree that wherever possible and practicable it is better that this should be done through the traders because it causes the least dislocation of the industry.
But what position are the Government in, if the trades—some trades—know that the Government are creating this reserve for the national safety and that they have no power of doing so for themselves but must fall in with the demands of the trade whatever those demands happen to be? I cannot think that my hon. Friend would like the Government to be in that position. I regard this Amendment as rather a peg on which my hon. Friend wanted to hang some interesting and legitimate criticisms of transactions which have already taken place. I would make this observation, because the matter will no doubt be raised very often when we have


to debate this subject again. It is not fair, and never will be fair, to accuse the Government of having lost the taxpayers' money because after they bought a commodity the price of it has gone down. The point of the Bill is to get a reserve of the foodstuffs that we want as quickly as we can. It might well be that the Government would take the view that if they waited six months they could get a commodity more cheaply, but we cannot afford to wait six months because we have to get it now. Because of that we must buy in a fluctuating market whatever it may be. As to the criticism of the purchase of whale oil, I can tell my hon. Friend that the price of whale oil to-day is higher than the Government have paid.
With regard to the methods we have adopted in a particular instance I can say that in the circumstances of the moment we adopted the best method and one least likely to cause disturbance in an extremely sensitive market.
I fully share my hon. Friend's view as to the desirability of using the powers of Sub-section (1) as much as possible, and I fully share his desire that somehow or other arrangements should be made with traders by which they bear all the market risks in connection with these increased reserves, while the Government is free from such risks. I have to confess, however, that we have not yet found a commodity in regard to which it would be possible to make such a favourable arrangement. If we do see a chance of making an arrangement of that kind, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be only too anxious to take advantage of it. Finally, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I should like to emphasise the fact that, while it is quite true that the particular commodities we have bought hitherto have been, and indeed, from the nature of at any rate two of them, must be, imported, I should not like anyone to assume that this is a Bill which deals only with the purchase of imported commodities. We shall buy commodities either from abroad or from this country, whichever is the better from the point of view of increasing the reserves of the commodity in question to meet an emergency.

8.57 p.m.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the President of the Board of Trade for his reply, I should like to say, if I may, with

respect, that I think I have won a great victory in having got him to say that he will use the powers of Sub-section (1) as far as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have made certain criticisms from the business point of view, having no connection whatsoever with the trade in either whale oil or wheat, but merely trying to represent certain views in carrying out my duty, and I do not think it is for hon. Members opposite to interrupt. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has stated that the policy of the Government will be to use Subsection (I) as far as possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. Smithers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after "including," to insert:
the acquisition by purchase or hire, of storage accommodation.
This really follows what I have been trying to indicate. I do not want the Government to go into business, but I want them to have full powers of control over all storage.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I understand the object of this Amendment to be to give the Board of Trade power both to purchase and to hire storage accommodation. I can assure my hon. Friend that that power is already in existence. The Board of Trade has the power to purchase, and it is intended that any transaction of this kind, whether of purchase or of hire, shall be done by the Office of Works.

Amendment negatived.

9.0p.m.

Mr. Moreing: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, after "buildings," to insert "on lands belonging to them."
I move this Amendment for the purpose of seeking information from the President of the Board of Trade on a question which affects dock and harbour authorities in this country. If my right hon. Friend looks a little surprised that I should be moving it, I should like to remind him and the Committee that Preston, which I have the honour to represent, is a port. I will not say it is so important as London or Liverpool, or even Bristol, but it is a port, and I have been asked to put this matter forward on behalf of the dock authorities of the country. Two points


arise under Sub-section (2) as drafted. One is that the Clause as drafted gives the Board of Trade the power to
do all such things (including the execution of works and the erection of buildings) as may appear to them necessary for the storage, preservation and transport of such stocks.
We should like to know whether that will give the Board of Trade power to enter on to land belonging to a statutory dock undertaking and compulsorily acquire such land and erect warehouses on it. That seems to us to be important, because it gives a very wide power to the Board of Trade to interfere with the property of statutory undertakings which they have developed and are using in accordance with long determined plans, and the consequences of such interference may affect them adversely in the future.
There is another point on which we should like an assurance. If the Clause as it stands is carried, the Board of Trade will have authority to erect warehouses and provide increased warehouse accommodation in places removed from the present dock undertakings, and naturally, if they do this, it will be on sites which they regard as the least vulnerable to attack compatible with reasonable facilities for distribution. The position we foresee is that, after the crisis has passed—we all hope that it will not arise, and that these things will not be necessary—the Government will have on their hands considerable numbers of warehouses, and will be faced with the problem of what is to be done with them; and we are afraid that they might put them up through a disposal board and that they might be taken over by new under-takings—

The Deputy-Chairman: How does the Amendment affect that?

Mr. Moreing: The principle of the Amendment is that the Board of Trade would only put the warehouses and buildings on lands which are already Government property—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Moreing: The Amendment leads up to that.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that, if they acquired the land, it would belong to the

Board of Trade, and that is not in the Amendment.

Mr. Moreing: I bow to your Ruling, and will not pursue the point further, but will only say that we should like to have an assurance that in dealing with a crisis action will not be taken precipitately which may have a very serious effect on these bodies, which have invested very large capital sums and which are compelled, in carrying on their undertakings, to make charges to the consumers using their property which would make it difficult for them to compete against combinations of new warehouses erected under more favourable terms. It is only for the purpose of getting assurances from the Government on these points that I have moved the Amendment.

9.5 P.m.

Mr. Logan: It would appear to me that this would be patriotism running mad. One would imagine that in an emergency, which I hope will never occur, we would be anxious to make the best of it. In the last War we were in a bad position as regards storage, and had to depend on supplies obtained in a very haphazard fashion. Now the Government are taking time by the forelock and preparing for what may occur, and we find that, with the most patriotic ideas, we are having Amendments brought forward that are going to make it very difficult for the Government to get the best sites. In a great city it is most important that these warehouses, which might be called the granaries of the city, should be near the people. In a great city like Liverpool, in a time of national emergency, not only would we talk about entry on to the estate of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, but we would take the lot if we wanted it. If the nation finds itself in a dilemma everybody must at some stage make a sacrifice. Therefore, the Government are perfectly entitled to say, "We want these powers and we are going to exercise them; it is for us to take the sites for the benefit of the nation."

9.7 P.m.

Mr. Stanley: The only effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be to prevent the Board of Trade, in a case where they thought fit to erect a warehouse, doing so on land which they leased. The hon. Gentleman appreciates


that they would only have to buy the land to be able to erect a warehouse on it. There are many parts of the country where it might be impossible to get the appropriate sites—in Scotland especially. Scottish Members will realise that the feu system is very widespread, and it might be extremely difficult to buy land in Scotland. In any case, I do not see any reason for depriving the Board of Trade of this power. The Bill gives no power of compulsory acquisition, and it is not anticipated that we shall have to spend millions putting up warehouses all over the country which will be afterwards standing in competition with other warehouses. I do not think that the Port of Preston—and I do not need to be told that Preston is a port, for I have known it longer than my hon. Friend—need fear any unfair competition.

9.9 P.m.

Mr. Moreing: I will not deal with my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the Port of Preston. We know that his name is so well associated with Lancashire, and particularly with that part of Lancashire. In view of the fact that the Clause as drafted does not give compulsory powers for the acquisition of dock properties, I will, with permission, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out Sub-section (3).
In the Second Reading Debate the only part of this Bill that aroused any criticism was this particular Sub-section. It may be argued against my Amendment that I am attempting to leave out this Sub-section and not putting anything in its place. I plead guilty to that, but if the Committee did agree to leave out the Sub-section it would be for the President of the Board of Trade to devise the particular wording that he wishes to have in order to fulfil the intention of the Committee. The Committee will remember that under this Bill, while the power to purchase essential commodities is to be exercised by the board in secret, the disposal of the commodities must be preceded by an Act of Parliament. A number of us thought it was a great mistake that there should be this publicity before the disposal of commodities. We remember the loss that the country

suffered at the end of the last War, when the Government disposed of the War stock. In the Second Reading discussion there was a little difficulty in my mind as to what this Sub-section actually means. The President of the Board of Trade, when he moved the Second Reading, declared that this Sub-section meant
that any liquidation—I mean complete liquidation of stocks accumulated under the powers of this Bill—cannot take effect without another Act of Parliament defining the manner in which it is to be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1938; col. 2287, Vol. 336.]
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in summing up, said that this course had been taken
so that traders shall not have hanging over them indefinitely the possibility of disturbances of the market by the continual dribble of Government-owned stock on to the market, with the possibility of depressing prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1938; col. 2358, Vol. 336.]
I think, at the outset, we ought to have quite clear in our minds what is meant by Sub-section (3). Does it mean that no disposal at all of essential commodities can be permitted except by Act of Parliament, with the two exceptions, of course, that the Government can dispose when they need to replace the stocks by new stocks, owing to deterioration of commodities, or where the consuming power is altered, under the second proviso of Sub-section (3)? If so, this is unduly hampering the Government. It may happen that the President of the Board of Trade, in his discretion, might want to get rid of a certain amount of commodities for a certain period of the year, and if he was not permitted to dispose of the stock except by Act of Parliament it could not be carried out properly. Therefore, I would ask the Government to reconsider the Sub-section, and, either now or at a later stage, to give themselves the power both to purchase and to dispose of commodities when and how they think fit.
I am quite certain the present President of the Board of Trade would not exercise his powers in such a manner that there would be any disadvantage to the traders of this country. He would be careful, when he disposed of commodities, to do it with the same care that he must exercise when he purchases commodities. It is inconceivable that any successor of his from any side of the House would fail to exercise that discretion in carrying


out his functions. I can see no advantage at all in having it made obligatory for an Act of Parliament to be passed before any of this disposal could take place. The hon. Gentleman the Junior Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I think it was, said in his speech on the Second Reading that it did not matter at all if this Sub-section went. After all, the Government had bought these commodities by Parliamentary powers, and clearly they could drive a coach-and-four through the Subsection, and then come down to the House again. That might be a witty and just comment upon it, but if there is any likelihood of that happening it would be far wiser for us to eliminate this hampering power in Sub-section (3) and to give the Government full power in their discretion to purchase or dispose of stocks.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I rise at once to deal with this Amendment, because it raises, as my hon. Friend quite rightly says, the most difficult point that we encounter in the Bill. I frankly tell the Committee that this is a case where the Government have had—and I think the Committee will have to do so—to weigh two sets of disadvantages. I do not in the least deny—although I think we could very easily modify the disadvantages which my hon. Friend said would attach to the Bill—the fact that a new Bill is to be introduced is a warning that, at some time or other in the near future, liquidation is going to take place and may therefore have a depressing effect upon the market before the Government stocks can be disposed of. Provided that the Government stocks are not too great in size or too varied in character, and, as in most instances will be the case, that we are in the closest consultation with certain sections of the industry on the matter, I do not believe that it will be so difficult when the time comes to liquidate these stocks in an orderly manner.
I admit that it would be much simpler for the Government if, when the time came and the Cabinet decided that the emergency was over and we need no longer hold these stocks, we could start to get rid of them and keep the matter secret without anybody knowing it. But hon. Members must look at the other side

of the picture. We are assured from all sides, on this we made the most careful inquiry among the traders, that unless there is some guarantee—and this is the only form of guarantee which we could give—that these stocks are not to be thrown upon the market secretly and suddenly so much anxiety will be caused among traders that they will be frightened to carry large stocks because of this possible disturbance, and the result may well be that anything that we gain by an increase of stocks by action taken under this Bill, will be lost or more than lost by a decrease in the normal stocks held by the traders owing to the fear of Government liquidation.
If we have to choose between two sets of disadvantages, one which will operate during the period of the emergency and one which will operate only when the emergency has passed, above all we must avoid those disadvantages which operate during the emergency and which may by themselves destroy the whole effect of the Bill which we are now passing. I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. I wish it were possible—and I have devoted a great deal of attention to this—to have some other kind of statutory guarantee which we could give to the traders in these particular commodities, a guarantee which would give them the feeling of security which they must have if they are not to reduce their normal stocks, but I have been unable to think of any measure except this one, which does at any rate assure us that the liquidation will not take place until notice is given in the form of a Bill. If we do not have that we shall have continual rumours running around any little fall in prices. People will say, "Oh, that is the Government selling," and it may create such an atmosphere of fear and uncertainly in those markets as to disorganise them. That, quite frankly, is the dilemma in which we find ourselves, and it is the dilemma which I put to the Committee.

Mr. Logan: I am at a loss to understand whether you intend to keep these stocks, but as a business arrangement I should think that there would be no difficulty in dealing with the question of stocks and making an arrangement with the legitimate trade, so as not to handicap them in their business. I wonder whether


from time to time, in regard to the warehousing of these goods for national use in a time of emergency, it will not be possible to realise them when renewals come in?

Mr. Stanley: That, as I have explained, is already allowed for in the Clause. It is the regular turnover.

Mr. Logan: With regard to warehousing and storage?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. We are dealing with the stage in which you begin to sell and not replace. That is the dilemma, and I believe that in choosing the way which does not have disadvantages during the period of emergency, we are choosing the correct course.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being unduly apprehensive and also perhaps unduly tender. Is it to be said that everybody who may or may not suffer as the result of emergency is to be given a statutory guarantee that the circumstances of the emergency and the possible events that happen after it, are to be such that he or she will not suffer as a result of the emergency?

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. It is not a question of giving somebody a guarantee that they will not suffer. I am anxious not to create such an atmosphere of suspicion that they themselves, rather than incur losses, will reduce their stocks and thereby deprive us of normal stocks.

Sir S. Cripps: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did say. He said that the only form of statutory guarantee of which he had been able to think was this one.

Mr. Stanley: Yes.

Sir S. Cripps: What is the guarantee? It is the guarantee that nothing will be done by the Government which is likely to cause apprehension in the minds of people who are storing commodities. Their position is to be guaranteed that they are not to suffer in any way, by reason of the liquidation of Government stocks, without notice from Parliament and a new Act being passed and protection being given under the Act and on

various other matters. Is it proposed, in respect of this emergency, which we all hope will not arise, that everybody is to have their apprehensions removed of what may happen to them—for instance, wage earners in factories and other places—by giving them a statutory guarantee of some sort of Order being the best that can be devised by the House of Commons? Or is this to be limited merely to people who are traders or people who are storing goods, because if everyone is going to be asked in time of emergency to submerge his individual interest in the interests of the State, surely it is unnecessary to put in statutory guarantees as regards what the Government may find they have to do at the end of the emergency in order that they, representing the country, may come out of it as well as possible.
Surely the primary consideration here is not the question of apprehension. The primary consideration is how can the Government best and most favourably liquidate these stocks when the time for liquidation comes? It may be some opportunity abroad or something else in such circumstances may occur after the emergency when it is essential, if the Government wish to liquidate at all favourably, to liquidate immediately and not have to wait for an Act of Parliament to be passed before it can start. So far as the apprehension of persons already in the trade is concerned, if that apprehension is going to cause them to sabotage the desire of the Government in an emergency to get bigger storage, the obvious remedy is for the Government to do it themselves. It is idle for the Government to say, "We must rely upon the psychological condition of the rest of the country to permit the private trader to store so much extra, and those two amounts together will be sufficient." Surely, if there is any danger whatever of apprehension or any other reason coming in and causing the private trader not to store, if the Government are going to see that there is a sufficient quantity, they must have the whole of it under their control so that they can, if necessary, say, "You must fill that warehouse. You have not got it full. It may be because you are apprehensive or because you have not enough money. It may be for all sorts of reasons, but that warehouse is not full."
If the Government are counting on that warehouse as an essential part of the supply, they really cannot legislate on the basis that we must remove apprehension so that the warehouse shall be full. It is not only apprehension that may cause them to be anxious. There are thousands of reasons. The owner may not have enough money, or he may not desire to do it for business reasons. If the warehouse is considered an essential part of the storage, the Government must somehow or other see that it is used for storage and not merely leave it to the chance of what a private holder may or may not do in an emergency of that kind. Therefore, as far as the right hon. Gentleman puts this guarantee forward as a protection to ensure that private storage is used to whatever the Government have calculated its capacity to be, it is not really any protection at all, and it is not going to attain the objective that the right hon. Gentleman hopes it will attain. Therefore, there is really nothing to weigh in the scale against what he admits is the obvious advantage of giving the Government complete control as regards the time of liquidation, without having to have a fresh Act of Parliament, because what he is doing is not going to secure for certain what is essential in a matter of this importance, that private storage will be used to the capacity which the Government have calculated it may be used. The only way in which that can be done is to keep a continual check on what there is in private storage and, if that is falling too low, the Government must take steps, by taking it over or by some other means, to see that it is used to the capacity that they desire. Short of that there is no security of any kind. There being nothing really to be said against the point, the Government should consider very seriously taking the extended powers that have been suggested in accordance with this Amendment.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: As far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, it is that when you come to liquidation—that is a post-crisis operation; you are not likely to have to liquidate in the middle of a crisis—you cannot do it more or less at your leisure and consider the interests and threats to various people which in a moment of crisis you would

have no hesitation in ignoring. That is a sound point. As I understand the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), it would tend to this, that you should have no private storage at all. The whole of your operations should depend entirely on Government activities. But that is obviously not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill contemplates that there should be the simultaneous operation of private storage, private traders being encouraged to accumulate stocks, the Government at the same time supplementing their efforts by doing what they think necessary. If that is the object, I think it is reasonable that the Minister should do his best to assure private traders that they are not going to be confronted with an unnecessary difficulty at the end of the whole process.
It may be that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) was right when he suggested that the Government could drive a coach-and-four through the Act at the end, but I do not see that we need contemplate that they will do anything of the kind. If we are contemplating the simultaneous process of public and private stores, it is reasonoble for the Government to do everything they can within the four corners of the Bill to reassure those who are to co-operate with them that they are not going to be confronted with unusual difficulties at the end of the process when the crisis is all over. Undoubtedly the accumulation of a large pool of material by the Government or anyone else is a disturbing factor in the normal course of trade and, if the Government can do anything in the course of this Bill to prevent that disturbing factor from having an adverse effect, it is reasonable that they should do so, and I hope they will resist the Amendment.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Everyone will agree on the necessity of not depleting private stores as a consequence of the action proposed by the Government, but I doubt very much whether the Minister's proposal will have that effect. I should have thought that private traders would be satisfied that the interest of the Government in preserving the public well being is that in no circumstances should prices be broken by the sudden unloading of stocks, and that no assurance at


all can be adequate for the trading community in addition to the mutual self-interest which binds both parties together. There were circumstances following the late War when Government stocks were held off the market for a very long time in order not to break prices, and eventually were sold at ruinous prices because the Government had not taken advantage of the higher prices that existed from the end of the War till 1920 or 1921.
The Government are, obviously, always interested in not breaking prices, but what does the right hon. Gentleman propose? He says to the trading community, "We are going to accumulate stocks. We will hold those stocks and we will not disperse them until we have the permission of the House." I cannot imagine anything more likely to disturb the trading community than the proposal that would be made by the Government at that time, after a Debate in the House of Commons, informing the trading community that powers are to be taken to unload on the market the stocks which had been accumulated by the Government. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will say that having acquired those powers the Government would exercise them with discretion. If that be so, they do not want these additional powers. They will unload the stocks slowly on to the market so that the market can take the goods without any sudden slump. Therefore, I should say that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the worst possible thing for the psychology of business at that time in proposing to advertise in the most public fashion the acquirement of powers which did not formerly exist. I should have thought that the trading community has already all the guarantees that they can reasonably expect. If the Government unloaded these stocks suddenly on the market in such a way as to depress the price, the Government would lose trade and employment would lose.

Mr. Stanley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Surely, that is so, otherwise why is there apprehension? The apprehension is that the Government stocks would be unloaded in such a way as to take the place of privately sold goods, and so break the price. The Government have an interest in seeing that that is not done, and I should have

thought that if there are apprehensions—and there always must be apprehensions when the Government accumulate stocks of this kind—those apprehensions would be much more likely to be exacerbated than mitigated by the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes. I should imagine, therefore, that in these circumstances he should not give guarantees which would be more alarming than reassuring.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: This Sub-section is amazing when one realises that it has been fathered by this Government. Let us try to visualise what would very likely be the situation at the time when the Government would feel that it was opportune, in order to prevent deterioration of any stocks which they might have on hand, to bring a Bill before the House. Does not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that in all probability there would immediately be extremely powerful opposition to the passing of any Bill of that kind? That opposition would come from supporters of the Government. The excuse would be that the unloading on the market of a great deal of stocks would immediately depress prices. There is no doubt about that, because it is a habit of mind of the bigger capitalists in this country that if anything is placed on the market which is not directly their own, they are in opposition to it, and that opposition immediately finds its echo on the Government benches.
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman telling the House now, and it would be no use telling the House when the situation arose, that if we did not dispose of these stocks they would deteriorate and be wasted. That argument would not in the least affect his supporters on that side of the House. The Government have had unlimited experience in identifying themselves not merely with the destruction of stocks but with the destruction of industries. We have seen it going on in this House. We have had Acts of Parliament passed, taking chunks of basic industries and deliberately and wantonly destroying them by Acts of Parliament for which the present Government have been responsible. I am amazed at the indiscretion of the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the kind of supporters that he has and knowing that everything has to be opposed unless it: is exploitation by


industrialists and capitalists in this country. Without any shadow of doubt the moment that Act of Parliament was mooted the benches opposite would be packed with Government supporters who would not be the supporters of the Government in a case of that kind. Rather than allowing these stocks to be unloaded to depress prices, so that the poorest might participate in such unloading, I can well imagine solid opposition on the part of the Government supporters against anything being done to make it possible for a greater number of people to participate in some of the stocks mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill. It is a most indiscreet step on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to have embodied such a Sub-section in the Bill, because he knows that the habit of thought of those who call themselves Government supporters would cause them to oppose the Government. Therefore, this Sub-section is asking for their opposition along the traditional lines on which such opposition is expressed by the alleged supporters of the Government.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not share the pessimism of my hon. Friend as to who will be in control of these stocks if ever the time comes. I have no doubt that if the present Government remain in office very much longer we shall drift into the crisis. They were founded on crisis, they have drifted from crisis to crisis, and when crises no longer exist they will have no excuse for their existence. I am sure that any genuine crisis, as opposed to the artificial crises which they have created one after another ever since 1931, will effectively sweep them away, and I have no doubt that people far more in tune with the greater part of the Bill—

Mr. Stanley: Is this a repetition of the speech which the hon. Member made at Stafford?

Mr. Ede: I was not asked to go there. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the record of by-elections at which I have spoken he will realise that I have been called off in order not to create too much dismay in the hearts of the Government. The proposition before us is almost unprecedented. I can only think of one previous example in history to which we can refer, and that was in very ancient times when Joseph laid up during the

seven fat years a store for the seven lean years. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will, I am sure, be quite willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman, should I err from orthodoxy. I do not read that the corn trade of Egypt approached Pharaoh and suggested that the action of Joseph ought to be safeguarded by some similar Clause to that which we are now discussing. It is true, of course, that Joseph was forewarned of the exact length of the time of preparation and the duration of the crisis, and as they were apparently to be equal he was able to balance matters out. The right hon. Gentleman is not in that happy position.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member will recollect that there was a stern Jewish persecution which followed the end of that period of 14 years.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend should recollect that no parallel should be carried too far. I suggest that the difficulty of the Government is due to the fact that they are trying to graft a Socialist provision into a non-Socialist state of society. That is the fundamental difficulty which confronts them. For the purpose of an emergency they realise that nothing but Socialism can save the country, but at the same time they are concerned to see whether they can save private enterprise. I suggest that the disposal of these stocks is far too remote for us to bind ourselves in the matter to-night. Clearly, they cannot be disposed of pre-crisis, because that would be a notification by the Government, which exists on crises, that all danger was past, and an intimation to the dictators of the world that we regarded the position as secure. They will be disposed of in the ordinary way of business during the crisis, and, I imagine, will be continually replenished during the crisis.
Who can say if we get into another war what will be the condition of affairs at the end? I do not think anyone imagines that the words in this Bill will affect the position if the Government thought it advisable to ignore them. Let us recollect the Corn Production Act, under which the farmers were promised that there should be no variation of a certain guarantee with less than four years' notice. I believe it took less than four minutes for that guarantee to be destroyed by the same Parliament, when it suited their purpose. I suggest that the


Sub-section gives no real protection to anybody and it might seriously hamper the Government and the public interest in the final event. It would be as well if it were not included in the Bill.

Mr. Turton: I appreciate the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade. One effect of the Amendment, if it was carried, would be that it would accomplish exactly what hon. Members opposite have been hoping would not happen. If the Amendment was carried the Government would have no power at all to dispose of stocks.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member really cannot say that, because the Government would put in the appropriate power to meet exactly the assumption he made.

Mr. Turton: It is not for the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to say that he trusts the Government to bring in legislation, but it is permitted for me to say so because I am a loyal supporter of the Government. I hardly think it the right attitude for the hon. and learned Member to say that he dislikes the Sub-section in the Bill but that he has confidence that the Government will bring in exactly what he wants. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that between now and the later stages of the Bill he will devise a method to get the Government out of the dilemma they are in? If so, then I think it might be more convenient to raise this matter on the Report stage and put in a better devised Amendment than my own.

9.53p.m

Mr. Stanley: I do not think I can do more than repeat what I have already said, but I should not like to leave the Committee under any misapprehension or under any sense of subsequent grievance. I said that we have endeavoured to think of some alternative form which would prevent, in spite of the amusing and propagandist speeches from hon. Members opposite, the very serious danger of the depletion of the normal stocks at a period of emergency and at the same time do away with the difficulties which I frankly admit, although I think they have been exaggerated, arise from this provision. I will certainly give a promise to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that between now and another stage of the Bill I will continue my inquiries and think over the matter again, and if by any chance we can devise an alternative superior method I will bring it before the House. If we cannot I should not like the Committee to be under any misapprehension. We have to choose between the provision in the Bill and leaving it out altogether, and on balance the advantages are certainly on the Bill as it is.

Mr. Turton: On that understanding I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No!

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 99.

Division No. 235.]
AYES
[9.53 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Dunglass, Lord


Albery, Sir Irving
Colman, N. C. D.
Eastwood, J.F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Eckersley, P.T.


Assheton, R.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W.E.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith. S.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Elliston, Capt. D.S.


Balniel, Lord
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Emery J.F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Emmott, C.E.G.C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Emery-Evans P. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Entwistle, Sir C.F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Evans, D.O.(Cardigan)


Beechman, N. A.
Cross, R. H.
Everard, W.L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Fleming, E.L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Fyfe, D.P.M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Brass, Sir W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D
Gluckstein, L.H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dodd, J. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bull, B. B.
Donner, P. W.
Gridley, Sir A.B.


Butcher, H. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Grimston, R.V


Carver, Major W. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H.(Drake)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Dunsan, J. A. L.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)




Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Munro, P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Nall, Sir J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Higgs, W. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Spens. W. P.


Holmes, J. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Hopkinson, A.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hulbert, N. J.
Petherick, M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hunloke, H. P.
Radford, E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, H.
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Leech, Sir J. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lees-Jones,.J.
Ramer, J. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lewis, O.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O S.
Ropnar, Colonel L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Loftus, P. C.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Lyons, A. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wise, A. R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


McKie, J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Magnay, T.
Salt, E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandys, E. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Mr. Furness and Major Sir


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Benson G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cape, T.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Leonard, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir G. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Financial provisions.)

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "Exchequer," to

insert "as soon as may be and in any case."
I expect that representatives of the Government will at once have sensed why it is that this Amendment is being moved. We are reverting to a point that was


raised in the Second Reading Debate and originated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). Frankly, the reply of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence did not seem to be quite satisfactory, and if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I should be very glad if he would indicate upon what grounds he made the observations which I will quote in a minute. This point is not a party point, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, but it is a point of some considerable substance to the House of Commons as such. It goes down to what I regard as the rights of the House in regard to control over expenditure, and it is from that point of view that I am raising the matter, and not in any spirit of hostility to the general proposals of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Coordination of Defence used the following words:
The Bill requires that any money advanced should be paid back to the Consolidated Fund in the year following the close of the financial year in which the original transaction took place.
He went on to say:
That is a usual provision in connection with other advances out of the Consolidated Fund. It entails the ascertainment of the sum and the granting of it by the House of Commons in the previous July. That is the customary practice. It means a postponement of only three months after the close of the financial year in which the original transaction took place. There is nothing unsual in that, and it will in the appropriate period enable the House to obtain the fullest information."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1938; col. 2358, Vol. 336.]
I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us upon what precedent he bases that claim, for frankly I am not yet aware of the precedent upon which he relies. What we are doing in this Sub-section is this. To use the precise words of the Sub-section, we are authorising the Treasury
out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof to make temporary advances to the fund.
There is no limitation whatever—and this is the essential point—on the amount which may be advanced out of the Consolidated Fund. I suggest that to give, so to speak, an open cheque in that way is without precedent. As I say I am not raising the matter in any hostile spirit but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what precedent if any exists for this

course. The nearest thing to a precedent which I can recall is that of Section 18 of the Unemployment Act of 1934. In that case we were enabling certain benefits to be paid but the rate of payment was laid down by Parliament and therefore what was done subsequently was automatic. In this case no sum is stated and therefore it will be competent for the Treasury—though I do not say they would do it—to draw upon the Consolidated Fund for an unlimited amount of money. They are fully authorised to do so under the terms of the Sub-section.
Of course what will happen will be that the Treasury will from time to time come to the House of Commons with Supplementary Estimates but I am speaking of what is possible under this Sub-section as it is now drawn and striving, as best I can, to safeguard the rights of the House of Commons. If the words of my Amendment are not adequate or are open to criticism in any way, I am willing to accept any other words that may be suggested as long as they guarantee the right of the House of Commons and its control over the amounts to be taken from time to time out of the Consolidated Fund. I do not think it right that this House should give the Treasury carte blanche in this matter. Moreover, technically, the Treasury would not be called upon to give any account until the September of the year following the end of the financial year concerned. If, shall we say, money began to be abstracted for this purpose in April then unless there were Supplementary Estimates for the exact amounts, the time which would elapse before the Treasury were called upon to give any information to the House of Commons might be as much as 15 months. What objection can there be to my proposal that there should be an obligation on the Treasury as speedily as possible to inform the House of Commons how much money has been taken for a particular purpose? I do not seek to set any exact time limit but there ought to be some condition of this kind I think I have made by point clear. It is an important House of Commons point. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the wording of my Amendment is open to criticism and that a better form of words could be devised, I shall be glad to consider any alternative he may suggest. But I would like him to enlighten us, first, on what grounds there


are for taking these broad powers, and secondly on what precedent he relies when he describes this as a usual form of procedure.

Sir A. Salter: May I, Sir Robert, ask for your guidance. I wish to raise a point which is rather similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) but is not exactly the same and is I think scarcely covered by his Amendment. I wish to ask that certain information should be given to us, before we pass a Clause which, among other things, is really a Bill of Indemnity—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Young): If that is the hon. Member's purpose, he can ask that on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.11 p.m.

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas lnskip): I think the Committee appreciate the hon. Member's desire that the House of Commons should have information as soon as possible about any advances that have been made temporarily from the Consolidated Fund. I have no doubt that everybody in the Committee shares his opinion as I certainly share it that it would be undesirable that the House of Commons should only be acquainted with the facts at a late stage and to postpone the information for two or three years would be most undesirable. It could not, however, be postponed longer than the period mentioned in the instance which he has given, of an advance being made out of the Consolidated Fund in April which would mean that the House of Commons might not have the information until 17 months later. In practice, however, it is certain that that would not happen. The hon. Member has great experience in the Public Accounts Committee, and he knows the practice which is followed in these matters. In practice a Supplementary Estimate would be presented without waiting for the lapse of the full time allowed by the Statute.
The hon. Gentleman may reply that the practice is not good enough for him, and that he would like to see it in the Statute. I am not quibbling about the form of words which he has used in his

Amendment, but if I may, for once, assume the role of lawyer I would be inclined to say that these words would not be effective if there was any inclination on the part of the Government to depart from the practice which is familiar to us. The mere insertion of the words "as soon as may be" would not compel the Government to do anything. It would merely be a pointer or indication to the Government that the usual practice was the proper practice. I cannot say that I should take any very strong objection to the insertion of these words if the Committee really thought they were likely to be useful in effecting the object which we all have at heart, but I would not like to see them put into the Bill for the reason that I have mentioned, that they are not really effective for their purpose, and I think the Parliamentary draftsman's advice always is that you should not put in words which are not precise or adequate to effect the object which is intended.
I do not meet the hon. Member's criticism in any partisan spirit. As he said, this is not a party question, but a question which concerns the convenience of the House as the watchdog of finance. He asked me what is the precedent for these words. I was told on the last occasion, and I have been told again, that it is a very common provision, and he himself gave one precedent in the Unemployment Insurance Act, though he gave reasons for thinking that the mischief of delay was not so great in that case as it might be in this case. The answer which I will give to the Committee is that they may be satisfied that the usual practice will be followed, and that even if an advance was made out of the Consolidated Fund in April, it is certain that the necessary Supplementary Estimate would be taken in the ensuing months, so as to ensure the matter being brought before the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. I cannot conceive of any Government taking upon itself the responsibility of postponing it for 12 or 15 months and then having the criticism of the House directed against its delayed activity. I would respectfully ask the hon. Member whether, in these circumstances, he will not press the Amendment, which I think he will see would not really add anything to the effectiveness of the Clause.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I confess that in moving these words I was conscious of their vagueness, but one was anxious not to draft a form of words which would unduly hamper the Government in the work which they wish to do. However, even as they are, they do make a difference, for this reason, that these accounts would have to be examined by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons some year or 18 months later, and if these words were inserted, the then Public Accounts Committee would know, by cross-examination of the appropriate witness, whether in fact the Government had notified the House of Commons as early as it could have done or whether it had unnecessarily delayed doing so. I will make this offer to the right hon. Gentleman: He thought these words were insufficiently strong to meet my purpose. Very well, if it will meet his pleasure and

the pleasure of the Committee, I will undertake to withdraw them to-night, so that we can discuss them again between now and the Report stage, and insert stronger words to meet my point at that stage. If he will accept that suggestion, I will gladly fall in with it.

Sir T. Inskip: I must not allow the hon. Gentleman to be put into a position which he does not intend to take. There will be no Report stage unless some Amendment is carried at this stage.

Mr. Jones: In that case I had better hang on to the little I have, and, weak as these words are, and as I know they are, I would rather attach them to the Clause than have no such words at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 170.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.28 p.m.

Sir A. Salter: Before we pass from this Clause I should like to ask the Government whether they will either give us to-night, or promise us before the Bill becomes law, certain information which they have so far withheld. Sub-section (3) of the Clause is, among other things, a Bill of Indemnity. The Government have incurred expenditure without authorisation from Parliament and have now come to get indemnity for that act. Of course, I agree that their action was not only excusable but even imperative, but it is of a kind very rare in our Parliamentary history. I have not been able to find any other instance in a time of peace, except the case of the purchase by Disraeli of the Suez Canal shares. It is a very rare event, and I suggest, when the Government do incur expenditure in this way without authority, for however

necessary a purpose, that when they ask for indemnity they should give the fullest possible information to Parliament, unless there is an imperative, overriding public reason for not doing so. I suggest that there can be no such reason in this instance. I tried to get this information during the Budget Debate, and again on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I did not succeed. But we did draw two pieces of information from the right hon. Gentleman, which, I suggest, means that the withholding of the information for which I am now asking is no longer defensable.
In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman told us that he would next month be introducing a Supplementary Estimate, from which we shall presumably know how much the Government spent before authorisation. Secondly, he told us that the purchase of the stocks in question of the three commodities was completed and that no further purchases of those commodities


were at present contemplated. If no further purchases of those commodities are being made between now and the next month, there can be no real reason for withholding information now as to how much money has been spent for which a Bill of Indemnity is now sought, and that he could give us that information as well now as next month. The moment when it is obviously proper that that information should be given is when the indemnity is asked.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I was going to ask a similar question in relation to information which the public ought to have. The Bill states in Clause 3 the reason for the payments. Sub-section (2) provides for the payment of
such expenses incurred by the Board in respect of remuneration and allowances payable to any of the officers or servants of the Board.
Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is meant by "officers or servants of the Board"? I have in mind conditions which prevailed in a certain trade during the last War. At that time a percentage basis was paid to a certain firm in the City for buying stocks, and the firm were able to make such a huge fortune in a few weeks that it became almost a public scandal. The persons concerned at that time, if this Sub-section had been in operation, would have been, in my view, a servant of the Board, because he would have been acting under the direction of the Board and would have been employed for the definite purpose of purchasing the commodity. Are we to have a similar experience now? That is what I want to know. We have been told that the wheat has already been purchased and that it is now in store, but we have no information whatever as to the conditions under which it was purchased or as to the payments that were made to the persons who were negotiating—

Mr. Stanley: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think I ought to remind him that in my Second Reading speech I made the definite statement, which the House welcomed, that the firms concerned in the operation of these purchases had done it without charging any commission at all.

Mr. McEntee: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those people might not have charged any commission at that

time. Somebody has pointed out what happened in regard to timber; it may also be the case in regard to food, and there may be very serious profiteering by firms concerned, with the connivance and under the direction of the Government themselves. Cannot the Government tell us what is going to happen? It is no use telling us that up to now certain purchases have been made and that no commission has been paid. In the event of further purchases being made the people who have made the purchases now are not always going on acting for the Government in the purchase of huge quantities of wheat and other materials unless a commission or some form of payment is agreed upon. There must be something in the mind of the Government in that regard. Can they not take the House into their confidence and tell us what it is—whether these transactions are to be on a commission basis, or whether they are to be open to competition, or whether qualified people are to be asked to give estimates in regard to the purchase of wheat and other commodities?
Further, I agree with the last speaker that it is not only unusual but very dangerous that Parliament should permit expenses to be incurred—perhaps very heavy expenses—the amount of which we do not know. These expenses have already been incurred, and we are asked for an indemnity in respect of an expenditure the amount of which we do not know. Before we are asked to pass such a provision, we ought to know the amount of the expenditure that has been incurred without asking the consent of Parliament. I hope that, before we vote on this Clause, we shall get some further information on that subject.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Oswald Lewis: I should like to support in general terms the plea of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). It seems to me that, however strong may be the arguments for saying that the Government should have made these purchases without the previous authorisation of Parliament, there is very little to be said for the argument that, now that authorisation for these purchases is being sought, we should not be told the amount that is involved. The hon. Member for Oxford University said he understood that in about a month's time, in a Supplementary Estimate, the figures


would be available. I am not at all sure that that is going to be the case. I should like to ask the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, who, I see, is going to reply, this specific question: Will the figures in the Supplementary Estimate be arranged in such a way as to show what expenditure was incurred before the passing of this Bill, and what expenditure has been incurred since the passing of the Bill up to the time of the Supplementary Estimate? If those figures are confused, the information that the hon. Member wants will never be available.
There is another question to which I would like to draw attention, namely the question of secrecy. We all appreciate that the Government are operating in difficult circumstances, and that they are bound to make such purchases as they desire to make with the maximum of secrecy. But we do not want secrecy for secrecy's sake. Take the question of the storage of the commodities which have already been purchased. The President of the Board of Trade told us on the Second Reading, and he has reminded us to-night, that the firms who acted for the Government did so without charge. I listened very carefully to his speech on that occasion. Very likely it was my fault, but I formed the impression that these firms had provided for the storing of the commodities. Yesterday, however, when I put a question on that subject, I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that these firms have not provided any storage, but that storage has been provided elsewhere. That seems to me to be important, because we were also led to understand that these firms had undertaken that the existence of these stores of commodities, of which they know, would not influence them in their buying, but that they would continue to hold as large stocks as they did before.
I cannot conceive why the House should not be told something, at any rate, of the arrangements that have been made for the storage of these commodities—for instance, whether special buildings are to be erected, or whether the Government intend to hire buildings for the purpose. Surely we might be given some information on that head. I do not suggest that the Minister should tell us exactly where the commodities are; if he cannot give us information of that kind,

I am sure no hon. Member would press for it; but I think we are entitled to some general information, if the eminent firms who have purchased these commodities have not provided any part of their own storage for the accommodation of the commodities, as to how the accommodation has been provided.

10.40 p.m.

Sir T. Inskip: There is no difficulty about that. There is no objection at all to informing the Committee now of the volume of the commitments already incurred in respect of the purchase of wheat, oil and sugar. These commitments at the present time amount to a sum of about £7,500,000, but, as I told the House on the Second Reading, on 2nd June, hon. Members must not suppose that that sum will enable the Committee to judge the total volume of stocks of which, in one way or another, provision has been made in consequence of the arrangements of the Government. With regard to the point that the Committee should not be asked to pass a Clause which amounts to something in the nature of an indemnity for something done in the past. I can say that the indemnity which the Committee is asked to pass is for the sum I have mentioned. With regard to the point of the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the item for expenses in respect of remuneration and allowances, that has nothing to do with commissions. It is merely a provision that the salaries and allowances of officers in the Board of Trade, under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in so far as the services of those officers may be identifiable in connection with food storage, shall be payable out of the fund. The question of extravagant commissions, which the hon. Member mentioned, does not arise at all, therefore, on this Clause.

Mr. McEntee: Under Sub-section (3), there is provision for any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in pursuance of an arrangement made before the passing of this Act. Surely some arrangement has been made for the payment of expenses in connection with the purchase of that £7,500,000 worth of goods already purchased, and the arrangements, to which the Minister has just referred, for very much larger quantities, for which arrangements have been presumably made


without the actual payments having been made. I want some indication of the expenses.

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Gentleman, I thought, dealt with the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Clause when he made his original inquiry. Now I understand that he is referring to Sub-section (3).

Mr. McEntee: I mentioned both in my original inquiry.

Sir T. Inskip: I thought the hon. Member was referring to Sub-section (2), which he read out, and I have already, I hope, disposed of any anxiety he had in respect of that Sub-section. Now he asks a question with regard to Sub-section (3), which provides that:
Any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in pursuance of arrangements made before the passing of this Act for the purpose of creating or assisting the creation of a reserve of any such commodity as is described in the Schedule to this Act shall be defrayed out of the fund as if this Act had then been in operation…
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has informed the Committee, as he informed the House, that no commission at all has been paid in pursuance of the purchase of wheat before the passing of the Bill—that is, up to the present time. Therefore, the answer to that question is that nothing has been paid, so there is nothing to be defrayed out of this fund in respect of purchases of wheat.

Mr. McEntee: That is on the £7,500,000, but the right hon. Gentleman made reference to very much larger quantities that have been arranged for. Has any arrangement been made as to the method of payment?

Sir T. Inskip: No arrangement has been made for the purchase of anything more beyond what has been already purchased up to the present moment.

Mr. McEntee: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee must not understand that, because we have purchased only £7,500,000 worth, that is all that we have done; we have made arrangements for a very much larger sum than the £7,500,000 represents. I want to know whether, in making those arrangements, any arrangement will be made in the matter of payment for the great quantities of goods which must be envisaged by the Government over and

above the actual expenditure of £7,500,000?

Mr. Bellinger: Would the right hon. Gentleman elucidate the question of the £7,500,000 a little further? I understood him to say that this £7,500,000 sterling bears no relation to the quantities or the volume of commodities bought. What does it represent? Is this £7,500,000 in respect of options to purchase certain commodities, or what is it really for?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, misheard the words I used. I did not say that the £7,500,000 had no relation to quantities purchased, but that it was not a guide to the volume of stocks for which arrangements had been made. If I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I stated in COlumn 2356 of the OFFICIAL REPORT with regard to sugar, he will realise what I am referring to. I informed the House on that occasion that Messrs. Tate and Lyle undertook, without any charge to the Government but solely at their own charge, to hold an increased volume of stocks so as to prevent the stocks of sugar falling to the low point at which normally they would fall. That arrangement does not require the expenditure of any sum of money at all, and it is to that sort of arrangement that I refer as.being in addition to the purchases, the cost of which has been up to now £7,500,000.

Sir A. Salter: I understand that the £7,500,000 comprises absolutely all that the Government have so far spent upon these three commodities, and also that the Government do not propose at present to purchase any more of these commodities. Therefore, that sum is a guide to us as to the volume, except only so far as the trade may have been willing, without any financial assistance of any kind, without compensation by the Government and purely as a voluntary arrangement, to make the kind of provision that Messrs. Tate and Lyle have clone. If so, I suggest that while we cannot infer precisely the volume, we have a fairly close approximation of what has been done, and what is being immediately contemplated with regard to these three very important commodities.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Treasury and Postmaster-General to carry out arrangements with Cable and Wireless, Limited.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: As my hon. Friends and I propose to go to a Division on this Clause, I will indicate briefly the rather intricate financial point which this Clause raises. It is covered in the first words of the Clause:
The Treasury may accept any fully paid shares in Cable and Wireless, Limited, made over to it as aforesaid.
I will summarise the explanation of the reasons for these words which is given in the Preamble of the Bill. The explanation is this. For some generations our system of overseas telegraphy was conducted through the great submarine telegraph cables. Some years ago, however, the beam wireless system of overseas telegraphy came into the field and it became clear to everybody that if free competition was permitted between the two systems the beam wireless system would completely destroy the submarine cable system of overseas telegraphy. It became clear also that in some way or other these two systems must be combined under the same control. The beam wireless system was under the control and ownership of the Post Office. There were two choices, either for the Post Office to buy out the submarine cables, which course was proposed by the Labour Opposition, and the other choice was the one which the Government made, to establish a great combine with the beam

wireless, the Marconi Company, which controlled wireless telegraphy, and the submarine cable companies.
The Post Office handed over its beam wireless stations to the combine.
They made a certain financial arrangement that the combine should rent the Post Office beam wireless stations at an annual rental of £250,000. That is the background of this Clause, which proposes a change in this financial arrangement. Instead of having a rent of £250,000 a year the Clause proposes that the combine shall have the beam wireless stations as a freehold, that the property of the nation shall be transferred to the combine, that they shall pay no rent, that this £250,000 a year shall be lost to the State, and that in return the State shall obtain £,2,600,000 worth of shares out of a nominal capital of the combine of £30,000,000. That is to say that in future the State instead of obtaining £250,000 rent will get 8½ per cent. of the dividends which the combine will earn. That is the financial transaction contained in this Clause.
I will point out what this transaction means, taking the experience of the years since the combine was formed and since the arrangement was made. Last year on this new basis the State would have obtained £91,000; the year before £62,000, the year before because larger dividends were paid out of reserve £135,000, in 1934 £50,000, in 1933 £15,000, in 1932 £6,000 and in 1931 £6,000. The proposition which the Government have put before us is that the State shall give up a firm settled rent of £250,000 and obtain in return dividends from the company which can never be more than £100,000 and which for two years have gone down to £6,000. It cannot be disputed that this is a proposition under which the combine is bound to gain and, except by a miracle, the country is bound to lose. That is why we oppose it and why we shall divide against the Clause.
I am not going to repeat the arguments put forward on the Second Reading. I understand the point that the combine is lowering its imperial rates and that it has had great financial losses in the past, but I do not accept them as a sufficient justification. The combine has lowered its rates and every postal administration has lowered its rates, but it


expects as a return to get an increased traffic. Indeed, at a meeting of the combine a fortnight ago the Chairman, Lord Plender, argued to his shareholders that a lower rate would lead to an increase in traffic and, therefore, the combine does not need to be compensated. Undoubtedly the combine has lost money, but it was formed by people who had their eyes open and who, in fact, insisted upon forming it. When they formed it, there was an enormous increase in the shares on the Stock Exchange. There was a gamble. It has turned out badly, I admit, but I do not accept the idea that when there is a gamble on the Stock Exchange and it turns out badly, the State should accept a share of the losses. That is really what this Bill is doing.
I would point out to the Committee what it is in which we are landing ourselves. Undoubtedly this seems to the Government to be a very simple way of getting over the next year or two, but let us look ahead a few years, when this problem will face us again. These communications are changing rapidly, and the system of beam wireless telegraphy and submarine telegraphy is very unlikely to be our main method of communicating with overseas countries 20 years hence. What is most likely to happen in overseas communications is what has already happened in domestic communications—the telegraph will he pushed aside by the telephone.
Let me point out what is the position in regard to overseas telephony. Overseas wireless telephony is in the hands of the Post Office now, and it is very likely that in a few years' time overseas submarine telephony will develop. When I was at the Post Office, we had practically decided to take part in the creation of a submarine telephone cable. It had been accepted by the Treasury, and I believe there had been a preliminary Cabinet decision. I may say that it was due to the invention of a remarkable method of load cable known as the perminvar, which I think came from the United States. That decision had been taken by the Post Office, and was under discussion by the Government. It was held up by the slump, which made it obvious that there would not be a return on the traffic from this country to the United States. But I have no doubt that

a submarine telephone system will be developed, and from the information which I have, it is very probable that it would prove more certain and safer than the beam system, which is subject to all manner of interruptions.
What will happen then? Once again it will be the old story of the telegraph being pushed aside by telephony. It will be the story of 1928 again, the new system killing the old system; but then the new system, telephony, will be in the hands of the Post Office. What will you do then? How will you protect the older system? You will be faced by the same problem, and will have to give the same reply. All these methods of overseas communications will have to be put under one control inevitably, and there will be the choice—either you will have to hand over the property of the Post Office to this combine, with more profit to the combine, or you will have to go back to the 1928 position, and acquire for the Post Office the overseas telegraphy and the beam stations.
When that choice comes to be made, as it may in 10 or 15 years, what will be our financial position as a result of the arrangement to be made under this Clause? The Post Office may want to take over the beam stations. At present they are rented for 25 years of which 10 have elapsed at a payment of £250,000 a year to the State. If the Bill is passed what will be the position? The combine will have the beam stations as absolute property, without any consideration at all in the nature of an annual payment. The Government are committing the country to a position in which we shall be compelled to take over the freehold of these stations, with no rent at all, and the purchase price which the combine will demand will be based upon this new fact. For that reason, we on these benches intend to vote against this Clause and for that reason I wish definitely to state the view which my hon. Friends and I take on this subject.
These stations are being given away to-night. National property is being given away to-night. Our view is that it the time comes, as I think it will, when we have to take this property back again the just basis will not be that of an inflated price, upon the freehold tenure, without any rent at all, which the Bill is establishing, but a price which will


take into account the fact that these stations are to-day being given away to this combine for an inadequate, risky and fluctuating income.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Viant: When this Bill was considered on Second Reading, the financial aspect of the proposals was fully discussed, and it was evident that great sacrifices were being made to the cable and telegraph company at the expense of the public purse. That recalls to mind a statement once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Referring to the members of his own party, he said that, when occasion served, they were prepared to hand out money from the public purse by the shovelful and the bucketful. The present proposals are on those lines.
I was interested during the Second Reading Debate to listen to the defence of the Assistant Postmaster-General. The hon. Gentleman was in a difficulty in defending these proposals. He knows as well as I do that the one organisation capable of giving the best results where communications are concerned is the Post Office itself. That Department is undoubtedly on top of its job, and I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will place before this Committee the reasons why he is prepared to back a Bill of this character in spite of the experience he has had at the Post Office. Whenever he has spoken at that Box he has always impressed the House with this fact, that he was proud to be assistant head of a Department of which he could truthfully say that it was on top of its job and was serving the State with a measure of pride and efficiency that stood out. It will be interesting to hear what sort of a defence he has in this regard.
During the course of the Second Reading Debate on 30th May the subject was raised as to where we should stand in connection with European and overseas cables in the event of hostilities, and I remember that the House was left under something of a misapprehension in regard thereto. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able this evening to explain to the Committee exactly where we stand in regard to these cables in the event of hostilities, because we are handing over

to the control of this cable company very important communications. Another question that I want to put is with regard to the communications to Kenya. Since these were taken over by the cable company the Department has been endeavouring to arrive at an agreement in respect to these services. I understand that a price of £35,000 was suggested, but that no definite agreement has been arrived at. Are we to understand now that the price even of £35,000 is to be waived in connection with these services? Are we not to receive this £35,000? Is that to be given as another present to the Cable Company?
The next point is this: When the services are handed over to this company, there may not be a large staff affected, but none the less, whatever the number may be, they will be affected. This point was raised on the Second Reading, and the hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that he could assure the House that the interests and the future of the staff would be safeguarded. A measure of time has elapsed and the Committee is entitled to know what steps have been taken to safeguard the position of the staff which will be affected. Will the staff aet present operating these services be compelled to pass out of the Post Office service into a private company, will it be optional, and will their future be safeguarded in respect of promotion and security?

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The Committee stage of a Bill is generally for the purpose of examining the details of the Government's proposal, but as this Bill is drafted it is practically impossible to examine the details of what the Government propose to do with our beam wireless station. It is a Bill to enable the Government to make some kind of agreement, of which we have only the vaguest details, with the Cable and Wireless Company. Even the details in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill are so vague that one can make little of them. The Committee stage in these circumstances is little more than a farce. Take, for instance, Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which says:
The Postmaster-General may enter into an agreement with Cable and Wireless Limited whereby the circuits agreement is,


with certain alterations, continued for such period as may be determined by or under the agreement for the continuation thereof.
What are those alterations? In the Financial Memorandum we are told that they are alterations of a similar value, but does the value of those services remain the same in changing circumstances? We are entitled to know what the Government propose to do. We get no information from the Bill. What is the proposal of the Government in respect of Sub-section (3) which refers to Kenya? We have three different statements. There is, first, the statement in the Financial Memorandum:
It is proposed, as part of the present general settlement, that the Postmaster-General's claim should be waived.
Secondly, Sub-section (3) says:
The Postmaster-General may waive the Kenya claim.
Thirdly, there is the statement on Second Reading of the hon. Gentleman the Assistant Postmaster-General, who said:
We wanted the House to leave it open to my right hon. Friend and myself to argue it out with the company, and I think we can claim, at any rate, that the matter is in safe hands. I will try to see that your confidence is justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May; col. 1702, Vol. 336.]
May I ask the hon. Gentleman what was said my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) or me that gave him the impression that we had any confidence in him at all? If he is under that impression I can assure him he has misunderstood us. Here the Assistant Postmaster-General suggested that they proposed to argue the point. Which is correct, the Financial Memorandum which says that it shall be waived, or this statement that they will continue the argument with the Company as to what shall be paid? Further, why have the Post Office allowed the claim to remain outstanding for seven years? Is it the custom of the Post Office to argue about claims for seven years? This is merely an example of how this Company treat a Tory Government. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Keighley told us of some of the discussions he had with this Company when he was Postmaster-General. The Company learned that they could not treat a Labour Government in the way in which they are apparently treating this Tory Government. It is simply ridiculous that a claim for £36,000 should be outstanding

for seven years. The Company never intended to pay and they will not pay in the future.
As to Sub-section (4), again, we have only two details of the joint purse arrangement. The first is that it is taken on the basis of the years 1934–35–36, and the second that there is to be an annual maximum payment from one to the other of £25,000. No explanation is given of how the joint purse arrangement is going to work or why those three years were chosen and 1937 was left out. On Second Reading the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the arrangement was designed so as to give no financial advantage to either party
as long as circumstances remain substantially unchanged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1938; col. 1704, Vol. 336.]
Who expects them to remain substantially unchanged in a service which is changing with intense rapidity? To make an arrangement which gives no advantage "as long as circumstances remain substantially unchanged" is childish. Who will get the advantage when the circumstances do change? The best thing for the hon. Gentleman to do when he gets up to reply is to explain what the Government propose to do and to let us have some of the details which we have not had so far.

11.28 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): We have had a very interesting Debate—almost a Second Reading Debate—on this Clause.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Sir W. Womersley: I made no reflection on the Chair. If the hon. Member will keep quiet for a minute or two and allow the Chairman to conduct the business, we shall get on much better. I gave a very clear explanation of the whole of the provisions of the Bill on Second Reading, spending about 50 minutes in doing so, and I think I covered the points very completely; but it is my duty to clear up the doubts of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I will try to do so, and at the same time to see that they do not lose their last trains. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) complained that the House had been given only "vague details," but again I say that I feel that I gave a full ex-


planation. He wants to know the meaning of the words "with certain alterations" in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. They refer to alterations which will be necessary in consequence of the fact that the company will in the future be the owners of the beam stations and not merely the renters of them. The only alteration in substance will be that provision will be made that if the company gives up its present leased circuits it will be entitled to obtain free of charge, land lines of equivalent value between other points. I explained on the Second Reading that we had, along with the beam stations, leased to the company certain land lines required for the working of the beam stations and for connecting them with the main cable system.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised a point about the Kenya claim. I am going to tell the Committee frankly that on the Second Reading I had not full and up-to-date information, the reason being that the Postmaster-General has this matter in hand. My information was that a decision had not been arrived at in the matter at that time. I have now had an opportunity of having a word with my right hon. Friend, and he wants me to convey to the Committee the fact that he had agreed to waive this claim in respect of which an hon. Member asked me why we had delayed so long. This claim was put in for the first time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was Postmaster-General, on the basis that the Post Office were going to lose a certain amount of revenue, and it was capitalised as £35,000. The company suggested that a substantially smaller sum should be accepted, and argument has gone on ever since. My right hon. Friend thinks that it is in the best interests of all concerned to waive the claim, which he would have a good deal of difficulty in substantiating.
As regards the joint purse arrangement for the European telegraph system, I explained it fully on the Second Reading. It is a very simple arrangement, which is entered into by many businesses besides that dealing with telecommunications, and is a question of competitors deciding that they will not overlap in services or advertising but will work so that there is a payment one to the other according to whether there is an excess or a deficiency. It is definitely laid down that £25,000 is the maximum payment

in any single year. I can tell hon. Members also that I have implemented the promise I made on the Second Reading that I would communicate with the company as regards the staff. I made a definite statement that men who were dispossessed of their jobs under this arrangement would be found positions elsewhere. I told the House on that occasion that there would be no question of the men in the Post Office losing their jobs. In fact, the total number of people who could be dispossessed was not more than a dozen—at most. We made provision in regard to our men. I am glad to be able to announce to the Committee that I have received a letter from the chairman of the company—it is much better to have it in writing—in the following terms:
With reference to the promise made by my colleague, Sir Charles Barrie, in regard to the displacement of staff as a result of the joint purse arrangement, I am, of course, prepared to give effect to this, and, though I do not myself anticipate that the joint purse will diminish employment, I am happy to assure you that, if it does cause any redundancy in our service, the staff who may be affected will be found equivalent employment in other departments.
That is a promise in writing, and I again repeat that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself will see to it that the promise is carried out.
The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) wanted to know about a statement made during the Second Reading Debate, at column 1704 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th May, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley. He made it clear that he was talking about the Continental and not about the Imperial route, and he stated that in his opinion the Post Office had the right to take over these services at specified figures. He wanted to know why we entered into this joint purse arrangement when we could have taken over the services ourselves. We have, however, no such right; no such agreement was ever entered into. We have the right to take it over in case of national emergency, but not at any other time, without the consent of the company. We are not, therefore, in a position to be able to take over these services.
I have already explained our attitude with regard to Kenya, and I pass to the more important question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for


Keighley, who once occupied the position of Postmaster-General, and, may I say in passing, did his job very well indeed. He referred to the 1928 settlement, and wanted to know what were the arrangements made at that time, and why those arrangements were entered into. I think he knows the history of that matter. It was a question of dealing with these overseas communications, and this country was not the only party affected; the Dominions had a say in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not take them over and carry on. But we could not have got agreement on that at that time. It is well known that this was a definite arrangement suggested by a joint committee of all interested, including the Dominions and our own country, and they recommended that these beam stations should be handed over to this company, who could operate, not only the services from this side, but also the services in the Dominions. Parliament at that time decided that it was a right and proper thing to do, and we have to carry on under that arrangement. Today we have to consider what it would mean to this country if it should happen that we had not the full use of the cables as well as the wireless stations.
It has been asked why we have agreed to waive the payment of £250,000 a year, taking in return shares to the amount of £2,600,000 of the existing £30,000,000. In the first place, it was felt that there must be a reduction in rates, and it is clear that, on the basis of the existing traffic, the company will lose £500,000 by this reduction of rates. As I said on Second Reading, we expect to get increased traffic as a result of reduced rates. That happened in the internal telephones and the telegraphs. But that has to be tested out. I am hoping it will be so, for the company's sake and for the sake of the British Government, which holds 2,600,000 shares. It was realised, after the matter had been carefully considered, that the company could not make big reductions and continue to pay these heavy charges. As far as the Post Office are concerned, we do not stand to lose all that sum, because the Treasury will pay to the Post Office Fund £150,000 towards the £250,000. For that expenditure we get this advantage to commerce and trade, and the company can compete with foreign concerns which have established

services, and it is undoubtedly going to be a great binding link between this country and the Dominions.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know something about the proposal which was put before him when he was at the Post Office in regard to a telephone system by cable. That was put forward by an American company. They were not prepared to hand it over to the British Post Office. They wanted a partnership with the British Post Office—and I can imagine any foreign company wanting to have a partnership with the British Post Office. The financial arrangements, in our opinion, were not at all satisfactory, so the matter was allowed to drop. I can imagine what would have happened had we come to this House and suggested such a partnership between the Post Office and an American company. This is a British company with which we are making this arrangement, and an all-Empire company. I do not want to enter into a general discussion on the question of private enterprise versus state control. I could say a great deal—and I have said a great deal at by-elections—about it. I I hope on future occasions to have an opportunity of stating my views on that particular subject, but we are now on the Committee stage of a Bill. I think I have explained all the points about which hon. Members have asked. If any more information is wanted, I shall be pleased to oblige.

Mr. Viant: I put a question with regard to the employés, as to whether it is going to be optional for those in the employ of the Post Office at present to be transferred to the cable company, or whether it will be compulsory. That is very important.

Sir W. Womersley: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I forgot that point. But I dealt with it on Second Reading. I said definitely then—and my right hon. Friend said so also—that none of the employés of the Post Office would be transferred to the company; they would be taken into other departments. The employés of the company have now had assurances that they will be found employment in other of their departments.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 90.

Division No. 236]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cape, T.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
McGovern, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Mothers and Mr. Anderson.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.





NOES


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bull, B. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Beechman, N. A.
Butcher, H. W.


Assheton, R.
Birohall, Sir J. D.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Carver, Major W. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brass, Sir W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Colfox, Major W. P.




Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O.J
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hulbert, N. J.
Remer, J. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rowlands, G.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cross, R. H.
Law. R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lees-Jones, J.
Salt, E. W.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lewis, O.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lipson, D. L.
Sandys, E. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Soott, Lord William


Dodd, J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Doland, G. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Duggan, H. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dunglass, Lord.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spens, W. P.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eatersley, P. T.
Markham, S. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Ellis, Sir G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emery, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Everard, W. L.
Munro, P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fleming, E. L.
Nall, Sir J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fyle, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, O.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Petherick, M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannah, I. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Harbord, A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Radford. E. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Captain Dugdale and Major Sir


Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.
James Edmondson.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[11.44 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Procter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fleming, E. L.
Radford, E. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Fyle, D. P. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Assheton, R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ramsbotham, H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Gluokstein, L. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Reed, Sir H.S. (Aylesbury)


Belniel, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Remer, J.R.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Richard, G.W.(Skipton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J.R.(Blackpool)


Brahman, N. A.
Harbord, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchen, Sir J. D.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Rothschild, J.A. de


Brass, Sir W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rowlands, G.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Royds, Admiral P.M.R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E.A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E.W.


Burghley, Lord
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sandys, E.D.


Butcher, H. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hulbert, N. J.
Selley, H.R


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Sinolair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Colman, N. C. D.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Leech, Sir J. W.
Southby, Commander Sir A.R.J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Spens, W.P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J.J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M.F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tasker, Sir R. [...]


Crowder, J. F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J.D.W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R.L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Magnay, T.
Turton, R.H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakeheld, W.W.


De la Bère, R.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Donner, P. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Ward, Lieut.-col, Sir A.L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Irene M.B. (Wallsend)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Watt, Major G.S.Harvie


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wickham, Lt-Col. E.T.R.


Dunglass, Lord
Munro, P.
Williams, H.G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A.T. (Hitchin)


Eckersley, P. T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Womersley, Sir W.J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-Commander J.A.C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A.S.L. (Partick)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Patrick, C. M.



Emery, J. F.
Peaks, O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Emmott, C. E. G. C
Perkins, W. R. D.
Mr. Grimston and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adamson, W. M.
Debbie, W.
John, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, J.
Gardner, B. W.
Kirby, B. V.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R
Lathan, G.


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lawson, J. J.


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T. E.
Logan, D. G.


Burke, W. A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cape, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, A.
Mathers, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maxton, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.


Dagger, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Milner, Major J.


Dalton, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jagger, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.







Paling, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Tinker, J. J.


Parker, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Westwood, J.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Poole, C. C.
Stephen, C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Ridley, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ritson, J.
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to calculation of Post Office net Surplus.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 85.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[11.53 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Radford, E. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fleming, E. L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Furness, S. N.
Ramsbotham, H.


Apsley, Lord
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Assheton, R.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Remer, J. R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Beechman, N. A.
Harbord, A.
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harris, Sir P. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.
Salt, E. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Sandys, E. D.


Bull, B. B.
Higgs, W. F.
Scott, Lord William


Burghley, Lord
Holmes, J. S.
Selley, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chapman, A. (Rotherglen)
Hunloke, H. P.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Colton, Major W. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Spans, W. P.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
McKie, J. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Macquisten, F. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Magnay, T.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De la Bère, R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Doland, G. F.
Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Donner, P. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duggan, H. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dunglass, Lord
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eastwood, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wise, A. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Munro, P.
Warnersley, Sir W. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ellis, Sir G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.



Elliston, Capt. G. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Emery, J. F.
Peake, O.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Grimston.


Emrys-Evane, P. V.
Petherick, M.



Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Procter, Major H. A.





NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bellenger, F. J.
Cluse, W. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benson, G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Ammon, C. G.
Bevan, A.
Daggar, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, H.


Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Barr, J.
Cape, T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)




Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ridley, C.


Dobbie, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirby, B. V.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Ede, J. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Gardner, B. W.
Leash, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Groves, T. E.
Maxton, J.
Thurtle, E.


Guest. Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Messer, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Hayday, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Westwood, J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jagger, J.
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.



Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Turton: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman—in page 5, to leave out lines 17 and 18—has not been called.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I realise that it was in the discretion of the Chair, but I want to speak on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. The Amendment dealt with that to which this House has always objected, namely, legislation by reference. I would call the attention of the Committee to the definition of food:
'Food' has the same meaning as in the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.
It is curious that the word "food" does not occur in the Bill, but it occurs in the Schedule. So for the purposes of definition the Committee will have to look at the Schedule, where we find:
any essential commodity which in the opinion of the Board of Trade may be regarded as food for man and any raw material from which any such commodity can be produced.
It appears very unfortunate that we are going to put into the definition of food a form of words which was used for a quite different purpose in a different Act in 1928. This is the history of the 1928 definition. Originally the Food and Drug Acts had the definition that food should be "food and drink." There was the case of Shortt v. Smith, where it was suggested that chewing-gum was a food, and the court held that it was not. So the 1928 definition was brought in to cover chewing-gum and baking powder. I do not think we should consider storing large quantities of chewing-gum, but I should be well content to leave the definition as it is in the Schedule and leave it to the good sense of the President of the Board of Trade to say whether he regards any essential commodity as "food for man or any raw material from which any such commodity can be produced." I should have thought that would include such an important matter as baking power. May I refer the Committee to the definition of food in the Food and Drugs Act, 1928?
The expression 'food' includes every article used for food or drink by man other than drugs or water, and any article which

ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food also includes flavouring matters and condiments.
I also find:
The expression 'drugs' includes medicines for internal or external use.
I suggest that the result of the definition is that the right hon. Gentleman is including in it every noxious liquid which could be used for medicines but is excluding water and every beneficial liquid that is possible. I am certain that my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), if she were here, would register a protest against this definition. It does not seem to be quite what we want in this Bill. As my Amendment has not been called, there will not be a Report stage, but perhaps some Member of the House of Lords could be asked to alter it. If you want a definition, put in a reasonable definition which will cover what we wish to do and include "food and everything that is eatable by man or raw material from which such food may be produced." I hope the President will explain why we have this definition and will give an undertaking that the matter will be looked into in another place.

Sir T. Inskip: I do not think the definition is at all unfortunate, to use my hon. Friend's phrase. If a definition of some kind was not inserted, in accordance with a decision in the courts shortly after the Great War food would be held not to include tea, coffee or cocoa.

Mr. Turton: Would it not be covered by the definition in the Schedule, "Any raw material from which such commodity could be produced"?

Sir T. Inskip: I think not. I cannot conceive that the use of this very familiar definition—for it is familiar—can be any disadvantage at all to the Bill and I hope the Committee will not see any objection to passing the Clause as it is.

Mr. Davidson: Is it beyond the Minister's power to define the necessary foodstuffs which the Government consider should be stored?

Sir T. Inskip: The necessary foodstuffs may depend upon circumstances, which may alter. It is thought right to give this proper definition to food, at the same


time not tying the Government down too tightly by limiting the nature of the foods which may be stored.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the till.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 28, s. 11. and validation of orders purporting to have been continued thereunder.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the welcome news we have received from
Barnsley, it is not our intention to oppose this Clause.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.